大乘義章 11.49

11.49

第一辨相。四種求知，出《地持論》。始觀推尋，謂之為求。終成悟實，名如實知。求知不同，一門說四。言四求者，如論中說：一隨名求、二隨事求、三自性施設求、四差別施設求。四中前二名事別觀，後二合觀。故彼論言「彼名與事，若離相觀、若合相觀，別為名事，合為自性，差別施設。」言名求者，菩薩隨彼名字分齊，觀以求實，故曰名求。言事求者，隨色等事觀以求實，名隨事求。後二合中言施設者，依事施名、依名施事，名事相施，故曰施設。云何依名施設彼事？廢名求法，法如幻化非有非無，無一定相可以自別，將名攝法法隨名轉，方有種種諸法相立。相立由名，故曰施設。又依名字造作諸事，如依瓶名造作瓶事、依車乘名造車乘事，如是一切亦是依名施設事也。此施設中有體有相，體名自性、相名差別。於彼自性施設法中觀以求實，名自性施設求。於差別施設法中觀以求實，名差別施設求。四求如是。言四知者，如論中說：一隨名求如實知、二隨事求如實知、三隨自性施設求如實知、四隨差別施設求如實知。理實通論，菩薩於彼一一門中皆悉具知一切種義。隨相分別，第一門中但知世諦，知法名字隨世立故。第二門中知第一義，離名求事，事體寂滅，離言說故。第三門中知一實諦，知法體性非有無故。第四門中了知緣起差別法界，以知諸義同一體性互相成故。論言：隨名如實知者，隨前所求諸法名字，於中正知，知彼名為事故立，為想為見為於流布。若不立名，無有能知色等事者。是為隨名如實知矣。言隨事求如實知者，隨前所求色等諸事，於中正知彼事寂滅離言，離言求事事常寂故。自性施設如實知者，隨前所求名事體性，於中正知知此名事體，非有無猶如幻化影響夢等。是義云何？菩薩深知諸法如幻，幻化之有有非定有，非定有故無法為有，無為有故無外無別有性可得。幻化之無，無非定無，非定無故說彼幻化有法為無。有為無故，有外無別有性可得，還即說彼幻化有無為非有無。有無之外無別非有非無可得，還即說此非有非無以為有無。非有無外無別有無自性可得，進退推求無一別性，名一實觀。此理淵極，故論說為甚深義處。差別施設如實知者，隨前所求差別之相，於中正知論義同一性，互相集成種種差別。以知諸義同一體故，論中說之為不二觀。互相集成種種別故，論中說為有色無色、有性無性、可見不可見等無量差別。言有色者，世諦有色。言無色者，真諦無色。言有性者，真諦有性。言無性者，世諦無性。所言可見不可見者，若對色論，世諦可見、真諦叵見；若對性論，真諦可見、世諦叵見。知如是等無量種法，名隨差別如實知矣。辨相如是（此一門竟）。

First, discriminating their characteristics. The four kinds of seeking and knowing come from the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* (*Dichi lun*). The initial contemplation and investigation is called 'seeking'. The final realization of reality is called 'knowing as it truly is'. Because seeking and knowing differ, one approach speaks of four. As for the four seekings, as the treatise states: first, seeking according to names; second, seeking according to things; third, seeking according to designation of intrinsic nature; fourth, seeking according to designation of differences. Among the four, the first two contemplate name and thing separately, while the latter two contemplate them together. Thus that treatise says: 'As for those names and things, if one contemplates their characteristics separately or contemplates their characteristics together, separately they are names and things, and together they are designations of intrinsic nature and differences.' As for seeking according to names: the bodhisattva contemplates and seeks reality according to the scope of those names, hence it is called seeking according to names. As for seeking according to things: one contemplates and seeks reality according to things such as form, hence it is called seeking according to things. In the latter two that combine them, 'designation' means applying a name based on a thing and applying a thing based on a name; name and thing are applied to each other, hence it is called designation. How is that thing designated based on a name? Setting aside names to seek phenomena, phenomena are like illusions and transformations, neither existent nor nonexistent, possessing no fixed characteristic by which to distinguish themselves; when one subsumes phenomena under names, phenomena follow the names, and only then are the characteristics of various phenomena established. The establishment of characteristics is due to names, hence it is called designation. Furthermore, various things are produced based on names, just as a vase-thing is produced based on the name 'vase', and a vehicle-thing is produced based on the name 'vehicle'; everything like this is also designating things based on names. In this designation there are substance and characteristics: the substance is called intrinsic nature, and the characteristics are called differences. Contemplating to seek reality among those phenomena designated as intrinsic nature is called seeking according to designation of intrinsic nature. Contemplating to seek reality among phenomena designated as differences is called seeking according to designation of differences. Such are the four seekings. As for the four knowings, as the treatise states: first, knowing as it truly is by seeking according to names; second, knowing as it truly is by seeking according to things; third, knowing as it truly is by seeking according to designation of intrinsic nature; fourth, knowing as it truly is by seeking according to designation of differences. In terms of true principle, speaking generally, the bodhisattva fully knows all types of meanings within every single approach. Discriminating them according to their characteristics: in the first approach, one only knows worldly truth, because one knows that the names of phenomena are established in accordance with the world. In the second approach, one knows the ultimate truth, because one seeks things apart from names, and the substance of things is quiescent and free from words. In the third approach, one knows the one true truth, because one knows that the intrinsic nature of phenomena is neither existent nor nonexistent. In the fourth approach, one thoroughly knows the differentiated dharma-realm of dependent origination, because one knows that all meanings share the same single intrinsic nature and mutually establish one another. The treatise says: regarding knowing as it truly is according to names, one correctly knows in accordance with the previously sought names of phenomena, knowing that those names are established for the sake of things, for the sake of conception, for the sake of views, and for the sake of widespread dissemination. If names were not established, no one would be able to know things such as form. This is knowing as it truly is according to names. As for knowing as it truly is by seeking according to things: one correctly knows in accordance with the previously sought things such as form that those things are quiescent and free from words, because when one seeks things apart from words, things are ever quiescent. Regarding knowing as it truly is according to designation of intrinsic nature: in accordance with the previously sought intrinsic nature of names and things, one correctly knows therein that the substance of these names and things is neither existent nor nonexistent, just like illusions, transformations, shadows, echoes, dreams, and the like. What does this mean? The bodhisattva deeply knows that all phenomena are like illusions: the existence of illusions and transformations is not definitively existent; because it is not definitively existent, nonexistence constitutes its existence; because nonexistence constitutes its existence, outside of nonexistence there is no separate intrinsic nature to be found. The nonexistence of illusions and transformations is not definitively nonexistent; because it is not definitively nonexistent, one says that that illusory existent phenomenon constitutes nonexistence. Because existence constitutes nonexistence, outside of existence there is no separate intrinsic nature to be found. In turn, one says that those illusory existence and nonexistence are neither existent nor nonexistent. Outside of existence and nonexistence there is no separate neither-existence-nor-nonexistence to be found; in turn, one says that this neither-existence-nor-nonexistence constitutes existence and nonexistence. Outside of neither-existence-nor-nonexistence there is no separate intrinsic nature of existence and nonexistence to be found. Investigating forward and backward, there is not a single separate intrinsic nature: this is called contemplation of the one reality. This principle is profound and ultimate; therefore, the treatise explains it as the locus of extremely profound meaning. Regarding knowing as it truly is according to designation of differences: in accordance with the previously sought characteristics of differences, one correctly knows therein that the meanings of the treatises share the same single nature and mutually aggregate into diverse differences. Because one knows that the various meanings share the same single substance, in the treatise it is called non-dual contemplation. Because they mutually aggregate into diverse differences, in the treatise it is called having form and being formless, having intrinsic nature and lacking intrinsic nature, visible and invisible, and immeasurable other differences. Saying 'having form' means having form in worldly truth. Saying 'being formless' means being formless in true truth. Saying 'having intrinsic nature' means having intrinsic nature in true truth. Saying 'lacking intrinsic nature' means lacking intrinsic nature in worldly truth. As for what is called 'visible and invisible': if discussed in relation to form, it is visible in worldly truth and invisible in true truth; if discussed in relation to intrinsic nature, it is visible in true truth and invisible in worldly truth. Knowing immeasurable kinds of phenomena such as these is called knowing as it truly is according to differences. Such is discriminating their characteristics (this concludes the first section).