大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 28.60

28.60

疏「涅槃云」下，即無生四諦。然疏有三：初引經正明，即十三經，略示一苦。若具，應云解集無和合名集聖諦，解滅無滅解道無道等，影在次文。二「謂達四」下，以義釋經。云何言無生四諦？從緣無性即是空，故名之為無，非斷無也。滅雖無為，因滅惑顯，亦曰從緣。言「超筌悟旨成大」者，苦集滅道以為空筌，其猶筌[(ㄇ@(企-止))/弟]以求魚兔。無相空理即為魚兔，得魚亡筌，是悟空方便得成大乘，非離四外別有大也，如非離筌而得魚矣。三「又涅槃云」下，以引經證成大小別義，雙證生滅及無生也。經云「善男子！以是義故，諸凡夫人有苦無諦；聲聞緣覺有苦有苦諦而無真實；諸菩薩等解苦無苦，是故無苦而有真諦。諸凡夫人有集無諦；聲聞緣覺有集有集諦而無真實；諸菩薩等解集無集，是故無集而有真諦。聲聞緣覺有滅非真，菩薩摩訶薩有滅有真實。聲聞緣覺有道非真，菩薩摩訶薩有道有真諦。」故引此經文，兼釋解苦無苦下之三句。言「謂若苦即諦」下，釋經凡夫無諦之言。《涅槃．四諦品》云「佛復告迦葉：『所言苦者，不名苦聖諦。何以故？若苦是苦聖諦者，一切畜生及地獄眾生應有聖諦。』」亦即《思益經》文。此無諦言，約審諦說，不約諦實。若約諦實，三塗實苦。言「二乘雖審知之」下，釋二乘有諦無實之言。有審諦故如實知苦，不同凡夫妄計為樂。無實，可知。

From the Commentary's 'The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says' downwards, this refers to the four truths of non-arising. The Commentary has three parts: First, citing the sūtra to directly clarify it—namely, the thirteenth fascicle of the sūtra, which briefly indicates the one truth of suffering. If complete, it should state: 'understanding origin to be free from combination is called the noble truth of origin; understanding cessation to be free from cessation, understanding the path to be free from path', and so forth, which is implied in the next text. Second, from 'That is, penetrating the four' downwards, it explains the sūtra by means of doctrinal principle. Why are they called the four truths of non-arising? Arising from conditions without own-nature is precisely emptiness; therefore it is called 'non-[arising]', not an annihilatory non-existence. Although cessation is unconditioned, because it is revealed through extinguishing delusion, it is also said to be 'from conditions'. As for 'transcending the trap to awaken to the purport constitutes the Mahāyāna': taking suffering, origin, cessation, and path as the empty trap, it is like a fish-trap and a rabbit-snare used to catch fish and rabbits. The principle of signless emptiness is the fish and the rabbit. Gaining the fish and forgetting the trap is the skillful means of awakening to emptiness that accomplishes the Mahāyāna; it is not that outside the four there is a separate Mahāyāna, just as one does not catch the fish apart from the fish-trap. Third, from 'Moreover, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states' downwards, it cites the sūtra to substantiate the distinction between the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna, jointly substantiating both arising-and-cessation and non-arising. The sūtra states: 'Good man! For this reason, ordinary persons have suffering but no truth; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have suffering and have the truth of suffering, but have no reality; bodhisattvas understand suffering to be free from suffering, and therefore have no suffering but have the real truth. Ordinary persons have origin but no truth; śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have origin and have the truth of origin, but have no reality; bodhisattvas understand origin to be free from origin, and therefore have no origin but have the real truth. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have cessation that is not real; bodhisattva-mahāsattvas have cessation and have reality. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have a path that is not real; bodhisattva-mahāsattvas have a path and have the real truth.' Therefore, citing this sūtra text also explains the three phrases following 'understanding suffering to be free from suffering'. As for 'If suffering were itself the truth' downwards, it explains the sūtra's words that ordinary persons have no truth. The 'Chapter on the Four Truths' of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'The Buddha further addressed Kāśyapa: "What is called suffering is not called the noble truth of suffering. Why is this? If suffering were the noble truth of suffering, then all animals and hell beings would possess the noble truth."' This is also found in the Viśeṣacinti-sūtra. This statement of having no truth is spoken in terms of discerning truth, not in terms of the real and true. If spoken in terms of the real and true, the three destinies are real suffering. As for 'Although the two vehicles discern and know it' downwards, it explains the statement that the two vehicles have truth but no reality. Because they possess discerning truth, they know suffering as it truly is, unlike ordinary persons who falsely reckon it as pleasure. That they lack reality can be understood.