大乘義章 2.71

2.71

第十約就四諦分別。苦、集、滅、道是其四諦。若依《毘曇》，數滅無為體性不定，或滅諦攝、或復不攝。差別有四：一者聖人聖智斷結所得數滅，一向滅諦。二者聖人等智斷結，與彼無漏同治修故，所得數滅亦是滅諦。三者凡夫等智斷結得其數滅，後入聖道，重為聖智所印證故，亦是滅諦。云何印證？有人先在外凡夫時，用世俗智斷欲界結，或盡六品、或盡九品。後入見道，至第十六道比智時，無漏得生，得彼凡時所得無為，名為印證。若在凡時斷六品者，至道比智，不證第一須陀洹果，超證第二斯陀含果。先在凡時斷九品者，至道比智，不證須陀及斯陀果，超證第三阿那含果。何故唯說斷欲界結或六或九聖智所印，不說餘品？斷欲界結六品九品，應證果處，故為聖印；餘非果處，是以不印。問曰：聖智為緣故印？為當不緣？釋言：不緣。云何得知？道比智心緣上界道，而印欲界煩惱無處，故知不緣。此第三竟。四者凡時等智斷結雖得數滅，不入聖道，不為聖智所印證故，非是滅諦。數滅無為體性如是。若作境界，與苦集道三諦為境。證涅槃者，聞有涅槃則生苦惱，故為苦境。邪見等緣，故為集境。聖智緣故，能為道境。虛空非數，體非四諦。若作境緣，唯與苦集二諦為境，非滅道境。滅非緣智，故非滅境；道諦不緣無記無為，故非道境。《成實》、大乘數滅無為，一向是其滅諦正體，若作境界，與《毘曇》同。虛空非數，體非四諦，能與苦集滅道諦為境。樂有之者，緣無致惱，故為苦境。緣起諸見貪瞋癡等，故為集境。緣之無性，破以入實，故為道境。三無為義之辨麁爾。

Tenth, distinguishing with reference to the four noble truths. Suffering, origination, cessation, and the path are the four noble truths. If according to the Abhidharma, the intrinsic nature of unconditioned cessation through deliberation is not fixed: it is either subsumed under the truth of cessation, or it is not subsumed under it. There are four distinctions: First, the cessation through deliberation obtained when a noble person cuts off the fetters through noble wisdom is strictly the truth of cessation. Second, when a noble person cuts off the fetters through conventional wisdom (saṃvṛti-jñāna), because it is cultivated in common antidote with the untainted [path], the cessation through deliberation obtained is also the truth of cessation. Third, when an ordinary person cuts off the fetters through conventional wisdom and obtains cessation through deliberation, and later enters the noble path and it is ratified again by noble wisdom, it is also the truth of cessation. How is it ratified? Suppose a person, previously while an external ordinary person, used worldly wisdom to cut off the fetters of the desire realm, exhausting either six grades or nine grades. Later, entering the path of vision, upon reaching the sixteenth moment, the subsequent knowledge of the path (mārga-anvadharma-jñāna), an untainted acquisition arises, acquiring that unconditioned [cessation] obtained during the ordinary stage; this is called ratification. If while an ordinary person one had cut off six grades, upon reaching the subsequent knowledge of the path, one does not realize the first fruit of the srotāpanna, but leaps over to realize the second fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin. If while an ordinary person one had previously cut off nine grades, upon reaching the subsequent knowledge of the path, one does not realize the fruits of the srotāpanna or sakṛdāgāmin, but leaps over to realize the third fruit of the anāgāmin. Why is it only said that the cutting off of either six or nine grades of desire-realm fetters is ratified by noble wisdom, and not other grades? Because cutting off six grades or nine grades of desire-realm fetters is the place where one ought to realize the fruits, it is therefore ratified by the noble; the other grades are not places of fruit, and therefore are not ratified. Question: Does noble wisdom ratify it by taking it as an object? Or does it not take it as an object? Explanation: It does not take it as an object. How is this known? The mind of subsequent knowledge of the path takes the path of the higher realms as its object, yet it ratifies the absence of desire-realm defilements; hence one knows it does not take it as an object. This ends the third [case]. Fourth, when one cuts off the fetters through conventional wisdom in the ordinary stage and obtains cessation through deliberation, but does not enter the noble path, because it is not ratified by noble wisdom, it is not the truth of cessation. Such is the intrinsic nature of unconditioned cessation through deliberation. If treated as cognitive objects, it serves as an object for the three truths of suffering, origination, and the path. Regarding those who [cling to] realizing nirvāṇa, when they hear of nirvāṇa, distress arises; therefore it serves as an object of suffering. Because false views and so forth take it as an object, it serves as an object of origination. Because noble wisdom takes it as an object, it can serve as an object of the path. The substance of space and cessation independent of deliberation is not the four noble truths. If functioning as cognitive objects, they only serve as objects for the two truths of suffering and origination, and are not objects of cessation or the path. Cessation is not an object-cognizing wisdom, so they are not objects of cessation; the truth of the path does not take indeterminate unconditioned [dharmas] as its object, so they are not objects of the path. In the Tattvasiddhi and Mahāyāna, unconditioned cessation through deliberation is strictly the direct substance of the truth of cessation; when functioning as cognitive objects, they are identical with the Abhidharma. The substance of space and cessation independent of deliberation is not the four noble truths, but they can serve as cognitive objects for the truths of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path. Those who delight in existence generate distress by taking non-existence as an object; therefore they serve as objects of suffering. Because they give rise to various views, greed, anger, ignorance, and so forth by taking them as objects, they serve as objects of origination. By taking their lack of intrinsic nature as an object, destroying [delusions] to enter reality, they serve as objects of the path. The distinction of the meaning of the three unconditioned [dharmas] is roughly like this.