[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華玄義釋籤](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717) › 6.37 # 法華玄義釋籤 6.37 法華玄義釋籤 6.37 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6.37) 六明一諦，又為三：初分別，次判，三開。初又二：初法、次譬。譬中但通云轉不轉相對以明一諦，即一實諦是不轉故也。所言「如醉未吐見日月轉」等者，第二云：「諸比丘白佛言：世尊！譬如醉人其心眩亂，視諸山川城郭宮殿日月星辰，皆悉迴轉。若有不脩苦無常想無我等想，不名為聖。佛便迴此醉人之譬，反斥比丘云：汝向所引醉人譬者，但知文字而不知義。何等為義？如彼醉人，見上日月實非迴轉生轉想，眾生亦爾，為諸煩惱無明所覆生顛倒心，我計無我等，當知比丘！無明未吐謂有二諦，本日如一諦，轉日如世諦。」此帶實二諦也。若二乘人於轉日上復生轉想，故二乘人以菩薩俗謂為真諦，故下文云：「三藏全是轉二，即二乘二諦」也。是故《大經》十二，七種二諦文末說一實諦。文殊難言，即是如來、虛空、佛性無差別耶？此難意者，若唯一實，如來、佛性應同虛空。佛言：有苦有諦有實，三亦如是。如來非苦非諦是實虛空，佛性亦復如是。是則唯一實諦。次判中亦先約教、次約味，文中亦且通以轉不轉對辨麁妙。若歷諸教，教教如之。次「三藏」下約五味，中二：先正明，次借《地持》以顯一實。初文略無華嚴教意者，合在下文，云「諸大乘」即其意也。不煩文故，合在下耳。故知文意以證道明中為不轉妙，教道亦屬帶轉故也。次借《地持》中二：初借《地持》，次寄此文後約行人破執。初文二：初引文，次正明今意。初有兩番意者，前文約行，次文約教。初言「地持明地相」等者，地相謂地前迴向位中道觀雙流地相現前，登地已去明真實法稱為地實，初地即是初住故也。次文言「又教門」等者，依教道義，以四悉檀說登地法名為教道，故知初地已上仍存教道，若說十地已證之法即證道也。凡釋別義多用此意，具如《止觀》第三記。次今意者，借於此文證權實部。《法華》已前如地相教道，至《法華經》猶如地實及以證道，說佛自證，名為地實，約佛自行，故云證道。次寄此文後約於行人破執等者，破末代執者，諦雖是妙執故成麁，破其執情不破所執，所執本妙非關人情。開麁，如文。無諦者，秖前諸諦理不可說，故名為無。若通論者，大小皆有無諦，通即別故別乃成通，如《婆沙》云：「佛經中說一諦無諦。問：有四諦義，云何但云一諦等耶？尊者波奢說，一諦者苦諦，無第二苦，乃至道諦無第二道。復次一諦者，謂滅諦，為破外道種種解脫故。復次一諦者，謂道諦，能盡惡道苦故。又佛說二諦者，謂世諦、第一義諦，或云世諦謂苦集，第一義諦謂道滅。前合四諦為二，正用此意。復有說者，世諦謂苦集滅，第一義諦謂道諦。評者曰：四諦亦是世諦，亦是第一義諦。如苦集是世諦；苦空無常集因緣生是第一義。滅是世諦者，如佛說言如城園林；是第一義諦者，盡止妙離。道是世諦者，佛說道諦如筏如山如梯如樓；是第一義諦者，道如迹乘。若四諦盡是第一義者，世諦說陰界入，第一義諦亦說陰界入。」彼小乘中尚開合四諦為世諦、第一義等，況復大乘？ > Sixth, explaining the one truth also has three parts: first, distinguishing; second, judging; third, opening. The first also has two parts: first, the dharma; second, the metaphor. In the metaphor, it simply speaks generally of spinning and not spinning in mutual contrast to explain the one truth; that is, the one real truth is non-spinning. As for what is said, 'like a drunkard who has not yet vomited seeing the sun and moon spin,' etc., fascicle two states: 'The monks said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! It is like a drunkard whose mind is bewildered, who looks at mountains, rivers, cities, palaces, the sun, moon, stars, and constellations, and they all revolve. If there is one who does not cultivate the conceptions of suffering, impermanence, non-self, and so forth, he is not called a noble one." The Buddha then turned this metaphor of the drunkard around, refuting the monks in turn, saying: "The metaphor of the drunkard you just cited grasps only the words and does not know the meaning. What is the meaning? Like that drunkard who sees the sun and moon above, which in fact do not revolve, and produces the conception that they revolve, sentient beings are also like this: covered by afflictions and ignorance, they produce inverted minds, conceiving the self to be non-self, and so forth. You should know, monks! Before ignorance is vomited out, they say that there are two truths. The original sun is like the one truth; the spinning sun is like the worldly truth."' This is the two truths that encompass the real. If persons of the two vehicles further produce a conception of spinning on top of the spinning sun, therefore persons of the two vehicles take the bodhisattva's conventional truth to be the real truth; hence the text below states: 'The Tripiṭaka Teaching is entirely two \[truths\] of spinning, which is the two truths of the two vehicles.' For this reason, at the end of the passage on the seven kinds of two truths in fascicle twelve of the Great Sūtra, it speaks of the one real truth. Mañjuśrī raises an objection, saying: 'Then are the Tathāgata, space, and the Buddha-nature without difference?' The intent of this objection is: if there is only the one real, the Tathāgata and the Buddha-nature should be the same as space. The Buddha said: 'There is suffering, there is truth, and there is the real; these three are also like this. The Tathāgata is neither suffering nor truth; he is the real. Space and Buddha-nature are also like this.' This, then, is the only one real truth. Next, in judging, it also first treats it in terms of teachings and next in terms of flavors; the text also provisionally and generally contrasts spinning and non-spinning to distinguish crude and subtle. If one goes through the teachings, it is like this for teaching after teaching. Next, from 'the Tripiṭaka' downward treats it in terms of the five flavors, which has two parts: first, directly explaining; second, borrowing the Dichi to reveal the one real. In the first text, that the meaning of the Avataṃsaka teaching is omitted in brief is because it is combined in the text below; when it says 'the various Mahāyāna \[teachings\],' this is its meaning. To avoid prolixity, it is simply combined below. Hence we know the text's intent: explaining the Middle in terms of the path of realization is taken as the subtle non-spinning, while the path of instruction also belongs to encompassing spinning. Next, borrowing the Dichi has two parts: first, borrowing the Dichi; second, relying on this text, afterwards breaking attachments in terms of practitioners. The first text has two parts: first, citing the text; second, directly explaining the present intent. In the first there are two layers of meaning: the previous text is in terms of practice, and the subsequent text is in terms of teaching. The first statement, 'the Dichi explains the characteristics of the bhūmis,' etc.: 'characteristics of the bhūmis' refers to the contemplation of the Middle Way flowing dual-stream in the dedication stages prior to the bhūmis, where the characteristics of the bhūmis manifest; entering the bhūmis and beyond explains the real dharma, which is called the reality of the bhūmis, because the first bhūmi is just the first abidance. The next text states, 'Furthermore, the approaches of teaching,' etc.: relying on the meaning of the path of instruction, explaining the dharma of entering the bhūmis by means of the four siddhāntas is called the path of instruction; hence we know that from the first bhūmi upward the path of instruction is still retained, whereas if one explains the dharma already realized in the ten bhūmis, that is the path of realization. In explaining the Separate meaning, this sense is mostly used, fully as recorded in fascicle three of the Zhiguan. Next, the present intent borrows this text to verify the provisional and real sections. Before the Lotus Sūtra, it is like the characteristics of the bhūmis and the path of instruction; arriving at the Lotus Sūtra, it is like the reality of the bhūmis and the path of realization. Explaining the Buddha's self-realization is called the reality of the bhūmis; being in terms of the Buddha's own practice, it is called the path of realization. Next, regarding relying on this text, afterwards breaking attachments in terms of practitioners, etc.: breaking the attachments of those in the final age, although the truth is subtle, because of attachment it becomes crude; it breaks their attaching sentiment, not what is attached to, for what is attached to is fundamentally subtle and has nothing to do with human sentiment. Opening the crude is as in the text. As for 'no-truth': it is just that the principle of the preceding truths cannot be spoken, and hence is called 'no-\[truth\]'. If discussed generally, both the Great and Small \[Vehicles\] have no-truth; because the general is the distinct, the distinct then becomes the general. As the Vibhāṣā states: 'In the Buddha's sūtras it speaks of one truth and no-truth. Question: Since there is the meaning of four truths, why does it only speak of one truth and so forth? The Venerable Vāṣpa said: "The one truth is the truth of suffering; there is no second suffering... up to the truth of the path; there is no second path. Furthermore, the one truth refers to the truth of cessation, in order to refute the various liberations of non-Buddhists. Furthermore, the one truth refers to the truth of the path, because it can exhaust the suffering of the evil destinies. Moreover, the Buddha's speaking of two truths refers to worldly truth and ultimate truth; or it is said that worldly truth refers to suffering and origination, and ultimate truth refers to path and cessation." Combining the four truths into two above precisely adopts this meaning. 'Others say: worldly truth refers to suffering, origination, and cessation; ultimate truth refers to the truth of the path. The reviewer says: "The four truths are also worldly truth and are also ultimate truth. For example, suffering and origination are worldly truth; suffering being empty and impermanent, and origination being conditionally produced, is ultimate \[truth\]. Cessation being worldly truth is like the Buddha saying it is like a city, a park, or a forest; its being ultimate truth is \[its being\] exhaustion, calming, subtle, and separation. The path being worldly truth is the Buddha speaking of the truth of the path as like a raft, a mountain, a ladder, or a tower; its being ultimate truth is the path being like footprints and vehicles. If the four truths are entirely ultimate \[truth\], worldly truth explains aggregates, realms, and bases, and ultimate truth also explains aggregates, realms, and bases."' In that Hinayāna they still open and combine the four truths into worldly truth, ultimate truth, and so forth, how much more so in the Mahāyāna? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6.36) - [Next: 6.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6.38) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717~en-mt.6.37) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.6.37) · Pramāṇa