法華玄義釋籤 5.23

5.23

第三釋四諦境，自為四別。初文自為二，先出他解中又二：先述，次略斥。初文者，有勝鬘師釋彼經中聖諦之義，名為無邊，彼經但與二乘對辨，故唯得立作無作名。古人既無四教判釋，但以大小相對明諦。然勝鬘師於大乘中，唯以佛果而為究竟，即對二乘名為有作。經文自以有量轉釋有作，二乘既是有量有作，當知大乘秖是無作無量。次即判釋，約行、約法分作無作。作謂造作，故是行也。量謂數量，故屬法也。小行未窮不名無作，法未究竟不名無量。「經言」者亦《勝鬘經》也。依經重釋作無作等，彼經云：「有二種聖諦義，謂有作、無作。有作者有量四聖諦也。何以故？非因他知，能知一切苦，斷一切集，證一切滅，修一切道。」今文除上「非」字，改下「能」字為「非」字者，意顯小乘從教得故。經云「非因他知」者，意顯所證非從他得，自知己法亦可分名能知一切。今初先釋有作。言「因他知」者，二乘既未堪聞法界理，但從佛聞四諦聲教，依此教行知是有作行也。次釋有量者，上來但聞小乘之法，攝法不遍故云非一切知，當知行法兩種相顯共成小乘人也。次釋無作無量者，對小明大，故言無作無量。經云：「無作聖諦者，無量四聖諦也。何以故？自知一切受苦，一切受集，修一切道，證一切滅，如是四聖諦義，唯有正覺事究竟也，非二乘事究竟。」古人不了見經「唯有正覺」之言，便推極果，此是別教教道之說，非初發心畢竟不別。於中先釋無作。佛所知滿不復更作，故名無作。「自力知」去重釋也。有二義故名無作：一者自力知異從他聞，二者一切知異有量法。從「知者」去釋能知者，以屬於行，即是無作，所知一切即屬於法，是無量也。此即大乘行法相成成大乘人也。次云「如此釋者雖唱四名」者，略結斥也。謂作無作、量無量「但成二義」者，大小二義也。此且略斥，後猶廣破。

The third [section], explaining the objective realm of the four truths, itself has four divisions. The first text itself has two parts: first presenting the explanations of others, which again has two parts: first recounting them, and next briefly refuting them. As for the first: there were masters of the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra who explained the meaning of the noble truths in that sūtra as boundless; since that sūtra contrasts them only with the two vehicles, it only establishes the designations 'created' (with activity) and 'uncreated' (without activity). Since the ancients lacked the classification and explanation of the four teachings, they merely contrasted the Mahāyāna with the Hīnayāna to clarify the truths. However, among those in the Mahāyāna, the Śrīmālā masters took solely the Buddha fruit to be the ultimate, and thus, in contrast to the two vehicles, designated it as 'with activity'. The sūtra text itself turns around to explain 'with activity' by 'measurable'; since the two vehicles are measurable and with activity, one must understand that the Mahāyāna is simply uncreated and immeasurable. Next comes their classification and explanation, dividing 'with activity' and 'uncreated' with reference to practice and with reference to dharmas. 'Activity' refers to intentional action, and is therefore practice. 'Measure' refers to quantity, and therefore belongs to dharmas. The practice of the Hīnayāna is not exhaustive, so it is not called uncreated; its dharma is not ultimate, so it is not called immeasurable. 'The sūtra says' also refers to the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra. Relying on the sūtra to re-explain 'with activity', 'uncreated', and so forth, that sūtra states: 'There are two kinds of meanings of the noble truths: namely, with activity and uncreated. Those with activity are the measurable four noble truths. Why is this? Because it is not by relying on others that one knows, yet one is able to know all suffering, sever all accumulation, realize all cessation, and cultivate all paths.' In our present text, omitting the earlier character 'not' and altering the later character 'able' to 'not' is intended to make clear that the Hīnayāna receives it from teaching. When the sūtra says 'not by relying on others that one knows', it intends to make clear that what is realized is not obtained from others, and knowing one's own dharmas by oneself can also partially be called being able to know all. Now, first, we explain 'with activity'. As for 'relying on others to know': since the two vehicles are not yet capable of hearing the principle of the dharma realm, they merely hear from the Buddha the vocal teaching of the four truths, and by practicing according to this teaching know it to be a practice with activity. Next, explaining 'measurable': since they have previously only heard the dharmas of the Hīnayāna, which do not subsume dharmas comprehensively, it is said that they 'do not know all'; one must understand that both practice and dharma jointly manifest to complete the practitioner of the Hīnayāna. Next, explaining 'uncreated and immeasurable': by contrasting Hīnayāna to clarify Mahāyāna, it is called 'uncreated and immeasurable'. The sūtra states: 'The uncreated noble truths are the immeasurable four noble truths. Why is this? By self-power one knows all experiencing of suffering, all experiencing of accumulation, cultivates all paths, and realizes all cessation; such meanings of the four noble truths are the final culmination of affairs solely for the Fully Awakened One, not the final culmination of affairs for the two vehicles.' Ancient teachers did not understand; seeing the sūtra's statement 'solely for the Fully Awakened One', they immediately relegated it to the ultimate fruit. This is an exposition of the pedagogical path of the Separate Teaching, not the non-differentiation between initial aspiration and ultimate [realization]. Therein, first we explain 'uncreated': because what the Buddha knows is complete and there is no further action to be done, it is called 'uncreated'. 'Knowing through self-power' onwards is a re-explanation. It is called uncreated on account of two meanings: first, knowing through self-power differs from hearing from others; second, knowing all differs from measurable dharmas. From 'the one who knows' onwards, it explains the agent of knowledge; since this belongs to practice, it is 'uncreated'; that which is known—all things—belongs to dharmas, and is 'immeasurable'. This is practice and dharma mutually completing each other to constitute a Mahāyāna person. Next, stating 'such an explanation, although proclaiming four names': this is a brief concluding refutation. Stating that with activity/uncreated and measurable/immeasurable 'only accomplish two meanings' refers to the two meanings of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna. This is merely a brief refutation; later it will still be extensively refuted.