大般涅槃經義記 2.41

2.41

第三段中，文復有三：一汎舉八倒；二「有如是等」下，明八倒中有為四倒不知正修；三「汝諸比丘於苦法」下，結彼四倒屬諸比丘。初中應先解八倒義，然後釋文，義如別章。文中初言「苦者計樂、樂者計苦是倒法」者，生死實苦，妄計為樂，涅槃實樂，橫計為苦，故是顛倒，餘三類爾。前已宣說無為四倒，今此何故重復論之？蓋乃舉前類後故爾。比丘不但無為法中具足四倒，有為法中亦具四倒，故通舉之。又復懼人聞說常樂我淨是倒，一向入於苦無常等四顛倒中，為遮此過，故說八種悉是顛倒。第二段中，「有如是等四倒法」者，就前八中偏牒有為四顛倒也。「是人不知正修法」者，不知無常苦無我等微細四修，又亦不知常樂我淨四種真修。第三結倒屬比丘中，「汝諸比丘苦中生樂，乃至不淨生淨想」者，解有二義：一就眾生分齊以說，比丘雖復觀眾生空，斷除正使，習氣未盡，故起常樂我淨等想；二約諸法分齊以論，諸比丘等未得法空，故於諸法起常樂等四倒之想。以不知法自性無常，故起常想；不知諸法自性壞苦、虛集行苦，故生樂想；不知法空，故起我想；不知諸法淨相本寂，故生淨想。此想未除，云何自嘆善修無常、無我等乎？

In the third section, the text again has three [parts]: first, generally adducing the eight inversions; second, from "There are such..." onward, clarifying that among the eight inversions, those who have the four inversions regarding the conditioned do not know correct cultivation; third, from "All you bhikṣus, regarding conditioned dharmas..." onward, concluding that those four inversions pertain to the bhikṣus. In the first [part], one should first explain the meaning of the eight inversions and then interpret the text; the meaning is as [explained] in a separate chapter. In the text, it first says, "Reckoning suffering as pleasure, and reckoning pleasure as suffering, are inverted dharmas": saṃsāra is truly suffering, yet one falsely reckons it as pleasure; nirvāṇa is truly pleasure, yet one perversely reckons it as suffering; hence they are inversions, and the remaining three are analogous. Previously the four inversions regarding the unconditioned were already preached; why are they discussed again here? It is simply adducing the former to analogize the latter. The bhikṣus are not only fully possessed of the four inversions regarding unconditioned dharmas, but are also fully possessed of the four inversions regarding conditioned dharmas; hence both are adduced together. Furthermore, fearing that upon hearing that permanence, bliss, self, and purity are inversions people would exclusively enter into the four inversions of suffering, impermanence, and so forth, to avert this error, he explains that all eight kinds are inversions. In the second section, "There are such four inverted dharmas": among the preceding eight, it specifically repeats the four inversions regarding the conditioned. "These people do not know the dharma of correct cultivation": they do not know the subtle four cultivations of impermanence, suffering, non-self, and so forth, and they also do not know the four kinds of true cultivation of permanence, bliss, self, and purity. In the third [part], concluding that the inversions pertain to the bhikṣus, "All you bhikṣus give rise to [the notion of] pleasure in suffering, up to giving rise to the notion of purity in the impure": the explanation has two meanings. First, explained in terms of the demarcation of sentient beings: although the bhikṣus contemplate the emptiness of sentient beings and eradicate the active defilements, their residual impressions are not yet extinguished; hence they give rise to notions such as permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Second, discussed with reference to the demarcation of dharmas: because the bhikṣus have not yet attained the emptiness of dharmas, they give rise to the four inverted notions of permanence, bliss, and so forth regarding dharmas. Because they do not know that the intrinsic nature of dharmas is impermanent, they give rise to the notion of permanence; because they do not know that the intrinsic nature of dharmas is the suffering of deterioration and the suffering of conditioned formations that falsely aggregate, they give rise to the notion of pleasure; because they do not know the emptiness of dharmas, they give rise to the notion of self; because they do not know that the pure mark of dharmas is fundamentally quiescent, they give rise to the notion of purity. If these notions are not yet eliminated, how can they praise themselves as having skillfully cultivated [the contemplation of] impermanence, non-self, and so forth?