俱舍論疏 22.40

22.40

論「如有頌言至非聖說為樂」，引教證也。《正理論》云「然四諦理無有差別，在聖在凡皆如實故，依能見者偏立聖名。或義意言，唯諸聖者於四諦理以聖行觀，於一切時行相無別，聖行、諦理極相稱故，以諦隨行立聖諦名。非如世間六非聖行，先觀此地為靜等三，後復觀為麁等三相，非相稱故不隨彼名。或義意言：唯諸聖者於四諦理以聖智觀，一得正決定，無還不定理，故諦隨智得聖諦名。即由此理，聖智觀諦，得立苦、集、滅、道智名。凡智雖能見四諦理得決定已，容不定故，諦不隨彼得凡諦名，由此但應名世俗智。」問：何故虛空、非擇滅非諦所攝？《婆沙》七十七云「若法是苦（苦諦）、是苦因（集諦）、是苦盡（滅諦）、是苦對治者（道諦），世尊立為諦。虛空、非擇滅，非苦、非苦因、非苦盡、非苦對治，是故世尊不立為諦。」更有多釋，不及此釋。

The treatise says: "As a verse says, up to the non-noble speak of it as pleasure"—this cites scriptural authority as proof. The Nyāyānusāra says: "However, the principle of the four truths has no distinction; whether in the noble or in the ordinary, they are all true as they are. It is based on those who are capable of seeing them that the designation 'noble' is specifically established. Or, the meaning intended is: only the noble contemplate the principle of the four truths with noble practice; at all times their mental modes are without distinction, and the noble practice and the truth-principle thoroughly correspond to each other; thus, according to the practice that follows the truths, the name 'noble truths' is established. It is not like the six worldly non-noble practices, which first contemplate this stage as the three [modes of] calm and so forth, and later contemplate it as the three modes of grossness and so forth; because they do not correspond, [the truths] do not take their name. Or, the meaning intended is: only the noble contemplate the principle of the four truths with noble wisdom; once they attain correct determination, there is no principle of returning to uncertainty; thus the truths follow wisdom to obtain the name 'noble truths.' Precisely by this principle, when noble wisdom contemplates the truths, it obtains the names of the wisdoms of suffering, origin, cessation, and path. Although ordinary wisdom can see the principle of the four truths and attain determination, because it may still become uncertain, the truths do not follow it to obtain the name 'ordinary truths'; therefore, it should only be called conventional wisdom." Question: Why are space and cessation not through deliberation not subsumed under the truths? Vibhāṣā 77 says: "If a dharma is suffering (the truth of suffering), is the cause of suffering (the truth of origin), is the end of suffering (the truth of cessation), or is the antidote to suffering (the truth of the path), the World-Honoured One establishes it as a truth. Space and cessation not through deliberation are not suffering, not the cause of suffering, not the end of suffering, and not the antidote to suffering; therefore the World-Honoured One does not establish them as truths." There are many more explanations, but none equal this explanation.