勝鬘寶窟 3.32

3.32

就文二：一對虛明實；二「不思議」下，對情顯深。初中，前略、後廣釋之。「此四諦三是無常一是常」者，是其略也。此四者，牒上無作四也。上從一切如來乃至壞一切煩惱藏修一切苦滅道，此是廣釋無作四聖諦竟，故今牒之，所以云此四聖諦也。「三是無常」者，謂苦、集、道也。此之三諦，四義故無常：一相各異故、二因緣生故、三本無今有故、四已有還無故。滅諦翻此四，故名為常。然若通就理論之，則四諦同入真如，故悉名為常。此是差別無差別義。若無差別差別者，宜開四句：一苦集二諦但是無常。二滅諦但是常。三道諦亦常無常。若是四諦中道常，此是因道，故名無常；若是佛果之道，稱之為常。四泯上三門，歸乎一相，言妄慮絕，不可說常無常也。故《中論．觀如來品》云「寂滅相中無常等四」也。即此章下文「若定執涅槃常、生死無常，是墮二見。」故知理未曾常無常也。「何以故」下，第二廣釋。前問起發，何故三諦皆是無常、一諦是常？下解釋之也。前解三諦有二：初正解；「是故苦諦」下，總結也。正解凡有六句：初三明是、後三辨非。「三諦」者，牒前也。「入有為」者，苦集及道為三相所為，故曰有為。又有為是總、三諦是別，收別入總，故言入有為相。本無今有、已有還無，故是無常。實無有法，倒有情所起，故名虛妄。言「非諦」者，非是真諦。言「非常」者，非是真常。言「非依」者，非是真依。有為剎那不住，不能作染淨依持，故言非依。總結易知。下釋一諦亦二：初釋、後結。還翻上六：三句明非、三句明是。「離有為相者」，異上初句。不從緣集，故離有為。言是「常者」，此句正應名非無常，異前第二。「非虛妄」者，異上第三。言「是諦」者，對前非虛妄是真諦。《涅槃》云「若法不真，不名實諦。」此是就體為言。若智會前理，智亦名諦，是則二乘有苦諦而無真實。今以境實為諦，如云「諸佛菩薩有諦有真實。」言「是常」者，對前第二明理是常。言「是依」者，對上非依。以是常住是可依。「是故」下，結。結中少前二句，謂非常非依。有人言：從一苦滅諦，是第十一章常住安隱一依。前明有虛妄法非是依；今明真依者，乃是金剛心外眾苦盡處，離有為相、常住不變，此真依也。今明此中雖辨於依，為成滅諦，故不同此釋。上來第一對虛明實。

The text has two parts: first, contrasting the false to illuminate the real; second, from “inconceivable” downwards, contrasting with sentiment to reveal the profound. In the first part, it first explains briefly, and then in detail. “Among these four truths, three are impermanent and one is permanent” is the brief explanation. “These four” refers back to the unconditioned four above. Above, from “all tathāgatas” down to “destroying all kleśagarbhas and cultivating the path to the cessation of all suffering”, this concluded the detailed explanation of the unconditioned four noble truths; hence it now refers back to them, which is why it says “these four noble truths”. “Three are impermanent” refers to suffering, origination, and the path. These three truths are impermanent due to four meanings: first, because their characteristics are distinct from one another; second, because they are born of causes and conditions; third, because they were originally absent and are now present; fourth, because having already existed, they return to nonexistence. The truth of cessation reverses these four; hence it is called permanent. However, if discussed generally in terms of principle, then the four truths equally enter into tathatā, and so are all called permanent. This is the meaning of non-distinction within distinction. If it is distinction within non-distinction, four propositions should properly be opened: 1. The two truths of suffering and origination are merely impermanent. 2. The truth of cessation is merely permanent. 3. The truth of the path is both permanent and impermanent: if it is the ordinary path among the four truths, this is the causal path, hence it is called impermanent; if it is the path of the fruit of buddhahood, it is termed permanent. 4. Subsuming the above three approaches, returning to the single mark, words and discursive thoughts are cut off, and it cannot be spoken of as permanent or impermanent. Thus the chapter “Examination of the Tathāgata” in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: “Within the characteristic of tranquil extinction, the four such as permanence do not exist.” Immediately following in the text below this chapter: “If one fixedly grasps nirvāṇa as permanent and saṃsāra as impermanent, one falls into the two views.” Hence we know that the principle has never been permanent or impermanent. From “Why is this?” downwards is the second part, the detailed explanation. The preceding question initiates it: Why are the three truths all impermanent and the one truth permanent? The text below explains it. The preceding explanation of the three truths has two parts: first, the direct explanation; from “Therefore the truth of suffering” downwards, the general conclusion. The direct explanation has six clauses in total: the first three clarify what they are, and the latter three discern what they are not. “The three truths” refers back to the preceding. “Enter into the conditioned”: suffering, origination, and the path are acted upon by the three characteristics; hence they are called conditioned. Furthermore, conditioned is the general, and the three truths are the particulars; subsuming the particulars into the general, it says they “enter into the conditioned characteristics”. Originally absent and now present, having already existed and returning to nonexistence, they are therefore impermanent. In reality, there is no real dharma, but it arises from inverted consciousness; hence it is called false. “Not a truth” means it is not the true truth. “Not permanent” means it is not the truly permanent. “Not a support” means it is not a true support. The conditioned does not abide for a single kṣaṇa and cannot serve as the support and maintenance of defilement and purity; hence it is said to be “not a support”. The general conclusion is easy to understand. The explanation below of the single truth also has two parts: first, the explanation; second, the conclusion. It reverses the six above: three clauses clarify what it is not, and three clauses clarify what it is. “Free from conditioned characteristics” is distinct from the first clause above: not being aggregated from conditions, it is free from the conditioned. Saying “is permanent”: this clause should properly be called “not impermanent”, distinct from the second clause above. “Not false” is distinct from the third clause above. Saying “is a truth”: contrasting with the preceding, not being false is the true truth. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: “If a dharma is not true, it is not called a real truth.” This is spoken with regard to essence. If wisdom conforms to the preceding principle, wisdom is also called a truth; in that case, the two vehicles have the truth of suffering but lack the real. Here, taking the reality of the object as the truth, it is like saying: “The buddhas and bodhisattvas have the truth and have the real.” Saying “is permanent” contrasts with the second clause above to clarify that the principle is permanent. Saying “is a support” contrasts with “not a support” above: because it is permanently abiding, it can be relied upon. From “Therefore” downwards is the conclusion. Within the conclusion, the two preceding clauses are missing, namely “not permanent” and “not a support”. Some say: from the single truth of the cessation of suffering onward is Chapter 11, the “Single Support of Permanent Abiding and Peace”. The preceding text clarified that there are false dharmas that are not supports; now clarifying the true support, it is precisely where all sufferings end outside the adamantine mind, free from conditioned characteristics, permanently abiding and unchanging—this is the true support. We now clarify that although support is discerned here, it is to complete the truth of cessation; hence we do not follow this explanation. The above is the first part, contrasting the false to illuminate the real.