大般涅槃經疏 9.15

9.15

從「復次自正」去，是第二明四相一相。前分別顯示大般涅槃，故明一相四相；今明是一一相即，大涅槃等無有異，故明四相一相。若定一四，豈得一四？故知非一非四得說一四。他以異體一體三寶為例。今明不爾，異體三寶是小乘，非此流例。一四四一皆大乘意，一體三寶三寶一體可得類之。亦如上文總稱涅槃，別稱三德（云云）。就文為二：初正明四一、後反質釋疑。初正明者，證名自正。常破無常是正他。因問廣衍為答問。分別三點為因緣，名異體同，更非別法，故是一相。上文以法身為別、涅槃是總，今以涅槃為別、祕藏為總，是故不同。然顯名法身、隱名為藏，或時為總、或時為別。解脫與般若既等無有異，例亦應然。次反質中有疑有質、有答有通，可尋。問：四相一相是四悉不？答：義理應通，觀其文相亦可例作。大般涅槃即第一義，為聲聞說常是對治，因問廣說即為人，三點而成即世界（云云）。

From 'Furthermore, self-rectification' onward is the second section, clarifying that the four characteristics are one characteristic. Previously, to distinguish and display the Mahāparinirvāṇa, the one characteristic and the four characteristics were clarified. Now, clarifying that each single characteristic is mutually identical, and that the great nirvāṇa and so forth have no differences, he clarifies that the four characteristics are one characteristic. If they were definitively one or four, how could they be one and four? Therefore we know that being neither one nor four, one can speak of one and four. Others cite the Three Jewels of different substances and of one substance as an analogy. Now I clarify that this is not so: the Three Jewels of different substances belongs to the Hīnayāna and is not of this category. 'One being four and four being one' are both the intention of the Mahāyāna; the single-substance Three Jewels and the Three Jewels as a single substance can be analogized to it. It is also like the text above, where nirvāṇa is the general designation, and the three virtues are the specific designations, and so forth. In the text there are two parts: first, directly clarifying the four as one; afterward, cross-examining to resolve doubts. First, directly clarifying: realization is named self-rectification. Permanence destroying impermanence is rectifying others. Elaborating in response to questions is answering questions. Distinguishing the three dots constitutes causes and conditions. The names differ but the substance is the same, not being separate dharmas; hence it is one characteristic. The text above took the Dharmakāya as specific and nirvāṇa as general; now it takes nirvāṇa as specific and the secret treasury as general, and therefore it is different. However, when revealed it is named Dharmakāya, and when hidden it is named treasury; sometimes it is general, sometimes specific. Since liberation and prajñā are equal and without difference, by analogy it should also be like this. Next, in the cross-examination, there are doubts and interrogations, answers and resolutions, which can be examined. Question: Are the four characteristics and one characteristic the four siddhāntas? Answer: In principle it should apply, and observing the textual features, it can also be analogized accordingly. The Mahāparinirvāṇa is the paramārtha; speaking of permanence for the śrāvakas is antidotal; elaborating in response to questions is individual; and being completed by the three dots is worldly, and so forth.