大般涅槃經疏 9.4

9.4

四者，數也。相者，如經以四種相開示分別，大般涅槃顯然可見，從此立名。前諸問答皆含三德，義略不彰。此品答其願佛開微密廣為眾生說之問，明四相解般若，明三密解法身，明百句解解脫。今解般若，從此當名，故言四相。問願佛開微密，又云演說於祕密。開演云何？舊釋云：昔說法身般若無解脫，今開涅槃具足三德。此但解開，未明於說。開善云：四相答開密，現病答說密。此示兩文，未判其異。興皇云：竪論是開，橫論是說。昔以無常覆常，今以常覆無常，更互相覆今昔兩覆。迦葉請開佛，明今昔兩說是涅槃二用方便，同顯非常非無常。復次昔三點無常，今開是常。昔教直言自正正他是為四相，今開為般若；昔直言此身納妃生子，今開是法身；昔說有為解脫，即是智上意地能緣，今開為解脫。此三皆常，並是涅槃方便，此即竪明開微密相。若橫釋者，昔欲說常而不得說，為於邪常，今始說常二用具足。下文云「昔說有餘，江河迴曲；今說無餘，河不迴曲。」今昔相成共顯一道，此即橫說微密相也。是義不然。常、無常、亦常亦無常、非常非無常，此之四句皆覆正理。故《釋論》云「般若波羅蜜，四邊不可取，邪見火燒故。」又是四句皆方便門，譬王密語智臣能解。又此四句對治四執。又此四句皆是正理，故云一切諸法中悉有安樂性。若爾，悉皆相覆，那獨言常與無常更互相覆，不言餘二？論其方便，那獨言常與無常獨是二用，兩非方便耶？論其開密，那獨言開非常非無常，不開三句？偏僻自壞，其間並決，可自思之。今明四句悉互相覆，通是祕密；四句互治，通是方便；四句即理，皆得開祕皆名涅槃。如是悟解名開祕密，如是敷演名說祕密。更以四句重分別之。自有開非說、說非開、亦開亦說、非開非說，就自行為開，教他為說，自他雙明則亦開亦說，不自不他則不開不說。今之四句該括凡聖，不獨在佛。又一一句各論開說，自行顯理名開，自說己證名說，說中二者分別法相名開，如分涅槃以為四相名開祕密，通塗廣演名說。興皇只是此之一句。自行化他有二者，令他同己所得名開，己法授他名說。不自不他亦為二者，至無至處名開，常無所宣名說。如是分別開祕說祕，差別之相亦無差別。舊云：此品明三密，不明三德。亦云：此品明三德，不明三密。又云：只明三密即開三德，開口密是般若、開身密是法身、開意密是解脫，三據不同而為三章。今家用此三章消文。然呼為三密亦互相有，而從多判以為三密。

'Four' is a number. 'Marks' means: as the sūtra discloses and distinguishes with four kinds of marks, the Great Nirvāṇa is clearly visible; hence its name is established from this. The preceding questions and answers all contained the three virtues, but their meaning was brief and unmanifest. This chapter answers the question: 'We pray the Buddha will uncover the subtle and secret, and expound it broadly for sentient beings.' It clarifies the four marks to explain prajñā, clarifies the three secrets to explain the dharmakāya, and clarifies the hundred phrases to explain liberation. Now explaining prajñā, it takes its title accordingly, hence it is called 'Four Marks'. Question: 'We pray the Buddha will uncover the subtle and secret,' and it also says, 'expound the secret.' What are 'uncovering' and 'expounding'? Older explanations say: Formerly, the dharmakāya and prajñā were taught without liberation; now nirvāṇa is uncovered as completely possessing the three virtues. This only explains 'uncovering', and does not clarify 'expounding'. Kāishàn says: The four marks answer uncovering the secret; manifesting illness answers expounding the secret. This points out the two passages, but does not determine their difference. Xīnghuáng says: Treated vertically, it is uncovering; treated horizontally, it is expounding. Formerly, the constant was covered by impermanence; now, impermanence is covered by the constant: they mutually cover one another, both past and present being concealments. Kāśyapa requested the Buddha to uncover, and the Buddha explained that both teachings, past and present, are skillful means of the two functions of nirvāṇa, together manifesting neither-constant-nor-impermanent. Furthermore, formerly the three dots were impermanent; now they are uncovered as constant. The former teaching straightforwardly said that righting oneself and righting others are the four marks; now they are uncovered as prajñā. Formerly, it straightforwardly said this body took a consort and fathered a son; now it is uncovered as the dharmakāya. Formerly, it spoke of conditioned liberation, which is the cognitive capacity of the mental ground above wisdom; now it is uncovered as liberation. These three are all constant and are all skillful means of nirvāṇa; this is vertically clarifying the marks of uncovering the subtle and secret. If explained horizontally: Formerly he wished to speak of the constant but could not speak of it, because of perverse views of constancy; now he first speaks of the constant, fully endowed with both functions. A later passage says: 'Formerly I spoke of remainder, like a river meandering; now I speak of without remainder, like a river not meandering.' Past and present complement each other to jointly reveal the one path; this is horizontally expounding the marks of the subtle and secret. This interpretation is not correct. The four propositions—constant, impermanent, both constant and impermanent, and neither constant nor impermanent—all conceal the correct principle. Therefore the Treatise says: 'The prajñāpāramitā cannot be grasped at any of the four extremes, because of burning by the fire of wrong views.' Furthermore, these four propositions are all gates of skillful means, like a king's secret words which only a wise minister can understand. Furthermore, these four propositions counteract the four attachments. Furthermore, these four propositions are all correct principle; hence it is said: 'Among all dharmas, all have the nature of peace and bliss.' If so, they all mutually cover one another; why say only that the constant and impermanent mutually cover one another, without mentioning the other two? When discussing their skillful means, why say only that the constant and impermanent are the two functions, while the other two are not skillful means? When discussing uncovering the secret, why say only that neither-constant-nor-impermanent is uncovered, without uncovering the other three propositions? This one-sided view collapses on its own, and the points between them are resolved together; one may reflect on this oneself. Now we explain: The four propositions all mutually conceal one another and are universally secret; the four propositions mutually remedy one another and are universally skillful means; the four propositions are identical to principle, can all uncover the secret, and are all named nirvāṇa. Understanding like this is called 'uncovering the secret'; expounding like this is called 'expounding the secret'. We may further distinguish them with the four propositions: There are uncovering without expounding, expounding without uncovering, both uncovering and expounding, and neither uncovering nor expounding. In terms of one's own practice, it is uncovering; teaching others is expounding. Clarifying both self and other is both uncovering and expounding; neither self nor other is neither uncovering nor expounding. The present four propositions encompass ordinary beings and sages, and are not confined solely to the Buddha. Furthermore, each and every proposition separately discusses uncovering and expounding: in one's own practice, revealing principle is called uncovering, and speaking of one's own realization is called expounding. Within expounding, there are two: distinguishing the characteristics of dharmas is called uncovering—such as dividing nirvāṇa into four marks being called uncovering the secret—and broadly expounding the general path is called expounding. Xīnghuáng only grasped this one phrase. In practicing for oneself and transforming others there are two: causing others to attain what one has attained oneself is called uncovering, and bestowing one's own Dharma upon others is called expounding. In neither self nor other there are also two: reaching the place of no reaching is called uncovering, and eternally having nothing to declare is called expounding. Distinguishing uncovering the secret and expounding the secret in this manner, their marks of distinction are also without distinction. Older commentators say: This chapter clarifies the three secrets and does not clarify the three virtues. Others also say: This chapter clarifies the three virtues and does not clarify the three secrets. Yet others say: Merely clarifying the three secrets uncovers the three virtues—uncovering the oral secret is prajñā, uncovering the bodily secret is the dharmakāya, and uncovering the mental secret is liberation; these three bases differ, forming three sections. Our school now uses these three sections to parse the text. However, calling them the three secrets also implies mutual containment, but judging by the predominance, they are determined as the three secrets.