大般涅槃經疏 20.17

20.17

「善男子有不聞聞」下，第二正答，即為二：初約不聞聞四句、次廣開不生生兩番四句。南方舊解：初四句是法說、後兩四句是譬說。地論人：初四句是教相、次二是證相。觀師云：諸四句無異，為逗三根，三番說之。舊解初番四句，諸師不同。一師約二諦，云不聞聞即真為俗，故真得有聞、不聞不聞。此但真諦絕無見聞，聞不聞即俗為真無所聞也，聞聞但是俗中有於見聞。一師約真應，不聞聞者法身起應，不聞不聞法身嶷然，聞不聞者攝應還真，聞聞應迹聞見。一師約生死涅槃，涅槃真寂不聞不聞有感便應，不聞而聞生死紛紏。若能修道則聞不聞，若不修道常是聞聞。一師云：聞聞四句非是正意，後重研不生四句方是正意，宜就不生等解。不聞不聞是涅槃無始無終，不生生是涅槃無始而始，生不生是涅槃無終而終。生死亦然，生生是生死無始無終，不生生是無始而始，生不生是無終而終（云云）。今謂：義皆不然。何者？此三番四句圓冠諸法靡不該通，用圓釋經猶懼不會，安得偏作若教行證法譬解耶？非但方不會圓，兼復屠割傷體。又一師依於一諦以釋四句，雖言親密，彌益疏遺。況作二諦，疣累轉多。真應生死涅槃等二，亦復如是。況作生生等三句解者，損失事深。況作互無，只是小乘少分意耳，不關大道。今皆不用。又此十事皆是內證，德王難不聞聞、琉光難聞不聞，二詞雖異而同問證，答正廣明四句。若欲釋之，千塗萬轍同顯斯證猶懼不當，而諸師蓬飛野外、蓱流海表，偏據事相執一害諸，非但乖圓，永不聞證。若以四句通釋諸義，觸處皆通。欲解初四句，應扶佛語。佛雖答證，意在通修。初入證道，修道忽謝，無所可有，名為不聞。真明豁開，無所不照，即是於聞，故名不聞聞。證得如是大般涅槃，大般涅槃無有聞相，故名不聞不聞。證起惑滅，名聞不聞。寂而常照隨扣則應，名曰聞聞。今取佛解不生生中四句釋此，既是佛解，非徒穿鑿。初句明證智、次句明證理、第三句明證斷、第四句明證應。若事若理、智斷自他，於初證中具足無缺。如此之證，不與小共、不可思議，聞則驚怪，盡涅槃海。此一妙證，釋二人疑。復此不聞聞是證聖行、聞不聞是證梵行、不聞不聞是證天行、聞聞是證嬰兒行病行，一證一切證，圓證具足。故上文「佛告迦葉不獨汝得如是五行，今此眾中五十三萬人悉皆同得如是五行。」即其義也。復次不聞聞是證了因、聞不聞是證緣因、不聞不聞是證正因、聞聞是證境界，故佛答琉光云「汝於佛性猶未明了，我有慧炬能為照明。」即其義也。復次不聞聞是證圓淨、不聞不聞是證性淨、聞不聞聞聞是證方便淨，故佛答琉光云「汝今欲盡大涅槃海，我能為汝具足解釋。」即其義也。若得此意，於一證中自在廣說（云云）。

From "Good son, there is not-hearing hearing" onward is the second [section], the direct answer, which comprises two parts: first, [expounding] the four propositions of not-hearing hearing; second, broadly unfolding the two sets of four propositions on not-arising arising. The old interpretation of the South held that the first four propositions are an exposition in terms of Dharma, while the latter two sets of four propositions are an exposition by means of analogies. The Dilun masters held that the first four propositions concern doctrinal aspects, while the next two concern aspects of realization. Master Guan said: The various four propositions are not different; they are spoken in three rounds to adapt to the three capacities [of beings]. Regarding the old interpretations of the first round of four propositions, various masters differed. One master explained them in terms of the two truths, stating that "not-hearing hearing" means the ultimate becoming the conventional, and therefore in the ultimate there comes to be hearing; [in] "not-hearing not-hearing", here the ultimate truth alone is utterly free of seeing and hearing; "hearing not-hearing" means the conventional becoming the ultimate, so that there is nothing heard; and "hearing hearing" is merely having seeing and hearing within the conventional. Another master explained them in terms of the true and response [bodies]: "not-hearing hearing" means the dharmakāya giving rise to the response [body]; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the dharmakāya remaining loftily motionless; "hearing not-hearing" means gathering the response [body] back into the true; and "hearing hearing" is the response-traces engaging in hearing and seeing. Another master explained them in terms of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa: nirvāṇa is truly quiescent, which is "not-hearing not-hearing"; when there is a resonance, it responds, which is "not-hearing hearing"; saṃsāra is turbulent and entangled, and if one can cultivate the path, then it is "hearing not-hearing", whereas if one does not cultivate the path, it is constantly "hearing hearing". Another master said: The four propositions of hearing and hearing are not the primary import; the subsequent re-examination of the four propositions of not-arising is the true import, and one ought to explain them with reference to not-arising and so forth: "not-hearing not-hearing" is nirvāṇa having no beginning and no end; "not-arising arising" is nirvāṇa having a beginning where there is no beginning; "arising not-arising" is nirvāṇa having an end where there is no end; saṃsāra is likewise: "arising arising" is saṃsāra having no beginning and no end; "not-arising arising" is having a beginning where there is no beginning; "arising not-arising" is having an end where there is no end, and so on. Now I state: None of these interpretations is correct. Why is that? These three rounds of four propositions encompass all dharmas perfectly, leaving none that is not comprehensively pervaded. Even when using the perfect [teaching] to interpret the sūtra, one still fears failing to accord with it; how could one interpret them in a biased manner as doctrine, practice, realization, Dharma, or analogy? Not only does the biased fail to accord with the perfect, but it furthermore carves up and damages the essential body. Moreover, one master relied on a single truth to explain the four propositions; though claimed to be intimate, it becomes all the more loose and deficient. How much more so when applying the two truths, where the extraneous encumbrances multiply even further! The dualities such as true and response, or saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, are likewise. How much worse is the interpretation made with the three propositions such as "arising arising", where the distortion runs deep! And explaining them as mutual non-existence is merely a minor perspective of the Hīnayāna, having nothing to do with the Great Path. None of them are adopted now. Furthermore, these ten matters all concern internal realization. Deva-rāja questioned not-hearing hearing, while Prabhā-raśmi questioned hearing not-hearing; though their words differed, they both asked about realization, and the answer directly and broadly clarifies the four propositions. If one wishes to explain them, though thousands of paths and myriads of tracks concur in illuminating this realization, one still fears falling short; yet the various masters have drifted like tumbleweeds across the wilds or duckweed over the seas, relying one-sidedly on phenomenal marks, clinging to one and harming the rest—not only deviating from the perfect, but never hearing realization. If one uses the four propositions to explain all meanings comprehensively, there is thorough penetration wherever they are applied. If one wishes to understand the first four propositions, one should accord with the Buddha's words. Although the Buddha answered regarding realization, his intent encompasses cultivation. Upon first entering the path of realization, the path of cultivation suddenly falls away and nothing whatsoever remains; this is called "not-hearing". The true illumination opens wide and illuminates everything; this is "hearing"; hence it is called "not-hearing hearing". When one realizes such great nirvāṇa, great nirvāṇa has no marks of hearing; hence it is called "not-hearing not-hearing". When realization arises and defilements are extinguished, this is called "hearing not-hearing". Quiescent yet constantly illuminating, responding whenever appealed to, this is called "hearing hearing". Now, taking the Buddha's own explanation of the four propositions within "not-arising arising" to interpret this—since it is the Buddha's explanation, it is by no means far-fetched speculation: the first proposition clarifies the wisdom of realization; the second clarifies the principle of realization; the third clarifies the eradication of realization; the fourth clarifies the response of realization. Whether phenomenal or noumenal, wisdom or eradication, self or other, all are complete without deficiency within the initial realization. Such realization is not shared with the lesser [vehicles] and is inconceivable; upon hearing it, one is astonished, exhausting the ocean of nirvāṇa. This single wondrous realization resolves the doubts of both individuals. Furthermore, this "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of holy practice; "hearing not-hearing" is the realization of pure practice; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of heavenly practice; "hearing hearing" is the realization of baby practice and illness practice: one realization is all realizations, the perfect realization complete. Therefore, the earlier text says: "The Buddha told Kāśyapa: 'It is not you alone who have attained such five practices; now within this assembly, five hundred and thirty thousand people have all likewise attained such five practices.'" This is its meaning. Furthermore, "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of the revealing cause; "hearing not-hearing" is the realization of the conditional cause; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of the direct cause; "hearing hearing" is the realization of the sphere [of objects]. Thus the Buddha answered Prabhā-raśmi: "You are not yet clear regarding the buddhadhātu; I have a torch of wisdom that can illuminate it for you." This is its meaning. Furthermore, "not-hearing hearing" is the realization of perfect purity; "not-hearing not-hearing" is the realization of natural purity; "hearing not-hearing" and "hearing hearing" are the realization of expedient purity. Thus the Buddha answered Prabhā-raśmi: "You now wish to exhaust the ocean of the great nirvāṇa; I can fully explain it for you." This is its meaning. If one grasps this idea, within a single realization one may expound freely and broadly, and so on.