大乘義章 19.40

19.40

第一門中約對四諦境界辨定。言四智者，我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有，是其四也。此四猶是四諦之智。四諦智中有其二種：一者汎爾觀境之智，所觀諦境不簡自他。二無學聖人內證之智，自證已寂、苦集已盡、自覺已寂、滅道已滿。今此所論，義當後門。於四智中，何者是其知苦之智、乃至何者知道之智？經論不同，乃有三別。第一依彼《毘婆沙論》。我生已盡，是斷集智。集因能起未來苦果，名之為生，無學斷竟，名我生已盡。梵行已立，是修道智。梵名為淨，無漏聖道能除垢染，出障清淨，故名梵行。無學聖人道行成滿，名為已立。所作已辦，是證滅智，斷障證滅，是其所作。無學聖人證滅功成，名所作已辦。不受後有，是斷苦智。後世苦報名為後有，無學聖人於此後報不復更受，名不受後有。問曰：經說四諦法門，先明苦集、後彰滅道。今明四智，何不依彼？乃先明其斷集修道，然後方明證滅除苦？釋言：法門說有種種，不可一定。經說四諦，依欣厭門，先染後淨。又欣厭中，依逆觀門，先果後因。其四智者，依順觀門，先因後果。以是義故，先明集道，後論滅苦。就前因中，要先除障，然後善成。以是義故，先明斷集，後彰修道。就後果中，先滅現過，然後不受未來苦果。以是義故，先明證滅，後明斷苦。此是一異。第二依彼《勝鬘經》文。我生已盡，是斷苦智。故彼文云「二種死中分段死故，說我生盡。苦報集起名之為生，無學斷竟，名我生盡。」梵行已立，是證滅智。故彼文言「得有餘果，證梵行已立。」梵名涅槃，無學聖人證梵行成，名梵行立。所作已辦，是修道智，修道斷障是其所作。無學聖人修人修道事建，名所作辦。不受後有，是斷集智。故彼文言「所斷煩惱更不受後，名不受後有。」集因能有後世之果，名為後有。無學斷竟，更不生後，名不受後。問曰：經說四諦法門，先染後淨。染淨之中，先果後因。彼說四智，何不依彼？乃先明其除苦證滅，後方宣說修道斷集？此亦聖說不同故爾。四諦法門已如上辨。《勝鬘》所說四智之義，依逆觀門，先果後因。以是義故，在先明其除苦證滅，後方明其修道斷集。就前果中，要先除障，然後得滅。以是義故，先明除苦，後明證滅。就後因中，要先修治，然後剪障。以是義故，先明修道，後彰斷集。此是兩異。第三依彼《涅槃經》文。一一智中，各有兩義。我生盡中，明其斷集，亦彰滅苦。彼文說言「永斷三世生因緣故，是故唱言我生已盡。」是斷集也。「更不復受五陰身故，是故唱言我生已盡。」是滅苦也。若欲同彼《毘婆沙》說，舉果顯因。若欲同彼《勝鬘》所說，舉因顯果。梵行立中滅道雙明，彼文說言「所修梵行已畢竟，是故唱言梵行已立。」明道圓也。捨學道亦名已立，彰滅極也。若欲同彼《毘婆沙》說，舉果顯因。若欲同彼《勝鬘》所說，舉因顯果。所作辦中滅道並說。彼文說言「如本所求，今日已得，是故唱言所作已辦。」是滅極也。修道得果亦名已辦，是道圓也。若欲同彼《毘婆沙》說，舉因顯果。若欲同彼《勝鬘》所說，舉果顯因。不受後中明其斷集，亦彰滅苦。彼文說言「獲得盡智無生智故，是故唱言不受後有。」獲得盡智，是斷集也。獲無生智，是滅苦也。若欲同彼《毘婆沙》說，舉因顯果。若欲同彼《勝鬘》所說，舉果顯因。此是三異。約諦不同，有此三別（此一門竟）。

In the first section, they are determined in relation to the objective realm of the four noble truths. The four knowledges are: "My births are exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done has been done, and there will be no further becoming"—these are the four. These four are still knowledges of the four noble truths. Among the knowledges of the four noble truths, there are two kinds: The first is the knowledge that broadly contemplates the cognitive object, where the contemplated realm of the truths does not distinguish between self and other. The second is the internal realization knowledge of the noble one in the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), where one's own realization has been stilled, suffering and its origin have been exhausted, one's self-awakening is stilled, and cessation and the path have been perfected. What is discussed here falls under the latter approach. Among the four knowledges, which is the knowledge of suffering, up to which is the knowledge of the path? The sūtras and treatises differ, presenting three distinctions. First, according to the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra*: "My births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning the origin of suffering. The cause that is origin can give rise to future fruits of suffering and is called "birth"; the one beyond training has severed it completely, hence it is called "my births are exhausted." "The holy life is established" is the knowledge of cultivating the path. "Holy" (brahman) means pure; the untainted noble path can eliminate defilement and emerge pure from hindrances, hence it is called the holy life. The practice of the path of the noble one beyond training is perfected, hence it is called "already established." "What was to be done has been done" is the knowledge of realizing cessation; severing hindrances and realizing cessation is what was to be done. When the noble one beyond training completes the work of realizing cessation, it is called "what was to be done has been done." "There will be no further becoming" is the knowledge of abandoning suffering. The painful retribution of future lives is called "further becoming"; the noble one beyond training does not receive this future retribution again, hence it is called "no further becoming." Question: The sūtras explain the Dharma teaching of the four noble truths by first elucidating suffering and origin, and later revealing cessation and the path. In explaining the four knowledges now, why not rely on that? Why first elucidate the abandonment of origin and cultivation of the path, and only then elucidate the realization of cessation and elimination of suffering? Answer: The Dharma teachings are explained in various ways and cannot be fixed to a single pattern. When the sūtras explain the four noble truths, they rely on the approach of repulsion and aspiration, putting defilement first and purity second. Furthermore, within repulsion and aspiration, they rely on the approach of reverse contemplation, putting fruit first and cause second. As for these four knowledges, they rely on the approach of direct contemplation, putting cause first and fruit second. For this reason, origin and path are explained first, and cessation and suffering are discussed later. In the preceding cause, one must first eliminate hindrances and only then achieve the wholesome. For this reason, the abandonment of origin is explained first, and the cultivation of the path is revealed later. In the subsequent fruit, one first extinguishes present faults and only then does not receive future fruits of suffering. For this reason, the realization of cessation is explained first, and the abandonment of suffering is explained later. This is the first difference. Second, according to the text of the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra: "My births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning suffering. Thus that text says: "Because of [ending] the death of fragmented rebirth among the two kinds of death, it is said that 'my births are exhausted.' The gathering and arising of painful retributions is called 'birth'; the one beyond training has severed it completely, hence it is said that 'my births are exhausted.'" "The holy life is established" is the knowledge of realizing cessation. Thus that text says: "Attaining the fruit with remainder is the realization that 'the holy life is established.'" "Holy" means nirvāṇa; when the noble one beyond training realizes and completes the holy life, it is called "the holy life is established." "What was to be done has been done" is the knowledge of cultivating the path; cultivating the path and severing hindrances is what was to be done. When the noble one beyond training's work of cultivating the path is accomplished, it is called "what was to be done has been done." "There will be no further becoming" is the knowledge of abandoning origin. Thus that text says: "The severed afflictions will never again be received later, hence it is said that 'there will be no further becoming.'" The cause of origin can bring about the fruit of future lives, which is called "further becoming." The one beyond training has severed it completely so that it will never again arise in the future, hence it is called "not receiving the future." Question: The sūtras explain the Dharma teaching of the four noble truths with defilement first and purity second; between defilement and purity, fruit is first and cause second. Why does that explanation of the four knowledges not rely on that, but instead first explains the elimination of suffering and realization of cessation, and only later proclaims the cultivation of the path and abandonment of origin? This is also simply because the noble teachings differ. The Dharma teaching of the four noble truths has already been distinguished above. The meaning of the four knowledges spoken in the Śrīmālā relies on the approach of reverse contemplation, putting fruit first and cause second. For this reason, it first explains the elimination of suffering and realization of cessation, and only later explains the cultivation of the path and abandonment of origin. Within the preceding fruit, one must first remove hindrances and only then attain cessation. For this reason, the elimination of suffering is explained first, and the realization of cessation is explained later. Within the subsequent cause, one must first cultivate and practice, and only then eliminate hindrances. For this reason, the cultivation of the path is explained first, and the abandonment of origin is revealed later. This is the second difference. Third, according to the text of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra: within each single knowledge, there are two meanings. In "my births are exhausted," it explains the abandonment of origin and also reveals the cessation of suffering. That text states: "Because of perpetually severing the causes and conditions of birth in the three periods of time, one therefore proclaims that 'my births are exhausted'"—this is the abandonment of origin. "Because of never again receiving the body of the five aggregates, one therefore proclaims that 'my births are exhausted'"—this is the cessation of suffering. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the *Vibhāṣā*, it adduces the fruit to reveal the cause. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the Śrīmālā, it adduces the cause to reveal the fruit. In "the holy life is established," both cessation and path are explained. That text states: "The holy life practiced has already been completed, therefore one proclaims that 'the holy life is established'"—this shows the perfection of the path. Relinquishing the path of training is also called "already established," which reveals the culmination of cessation. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the *Vibhāṣā*, it adduces the fruit to reveal the cause. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the Śrīmālā, it adduces the cause to reveal the fruit. In "what was to be done has been done," both cessation and path are stated. That text states: "What was originally sought has been attained today, therefore one proclaims that 'what was to be done has been done'"—this is the culmination of cessation. Cultivating the path and attaining the fruit is also called "already done," which is the perfection of the path. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the *Vibhāṣā*, it adduces the cause to reveal the fruit. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the Śrīmālā, it adduces the fruit to reveal the cause. In "there will be no further becoming," it explains the abandonment of origin and also reveals the cessation of suffering. That text states: "Because of attaining the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising, one therefore proclaims that 'there will be no further becoming.'" Attaining the knowledge of exhaustion is the abandonment of origin; attaining the knowledge of non-arising is the cessation of suffering. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the *Vibhāṣā*, it adduces the cause to reveal the fruit. If one wishes to agree with the explanation of the Śrīmālā, it adduces the fruit to reveal the cause. This is the third difference. Depending on the truths, there are these three distinctions (this concludes section one).