大乘義章 3.12

3.12

第五十六聖行分別。四諦之中各有四行，故有十六。苦中四者，謂苦、無常、空與無我。逼惱名苦，苦法遷流說為無常，苦非我所故名為空，苦非我體名為無我。問曰：苦中唯有此四？更有餘義？義別眾多，如《華嚴》說，所謂果報、擔累、危脆、怨毒、惱害、障礙、繫縛、陰蓋、遮難、難苦事等，如是非一。今據一門，且論此四。問曰：何故偏說此四？釋言：苦中義別眾多，既言且論，寧可具責？問曰：無常通苦集道，空與無我遍通四諦，以何義故偏攝苦中？釋言：法門有通有別。若就通門，無常空等義通餘諦。今就別門，無常空等，身、邊兩見對治法故，攝入苦中。是義云何？身、邊兩見迷苦而生，無常治邊；空與無我對治身見，是故隨對攝入苦中。何故身、邊偏迷苦生？報法麁現相狀顯著，人多取此以為神主，隨計斷常，是故身、邊偏緣苦生。此義具釋，如十使章。問曰：苦中具有四行，以何義故偏名苦諦，不名無常無我等諦？釋言：皆得。不可並彰，且說苦耳。設立餘名，會歸一難。又隨義釋，非無所以。義釋有三：一苦麁易覺，人皆同識，就易以名；二苦過麁重，生厭義強，故偏名之；三苦義唯別，不通餘諦，故偏名苦。餘無常等無如是義，故經論中多不說之。集中四者，謂因、集、有、緣。能生曰因，聚果名集，能有來果故評為有，緣此得報故說為緣。問曰：集中唯有此四？更有餘義？釋言：集中義別無量，所謂生、造、作、起滅、出、由、籍、方便、至到、趣向、次第、開道，如是非一。今據一門，且論此四。問曰：因果正相對法，前苦諦中不說其果，今集諦中何故說因？釋言：苦集各有多義，名皆不盡，隱顯互彰，何可具責？又復果義麁顯易識，不假言論，故不說果；因細難覺，故須說之。又復苦中若立果行，無由得顯人天樂果。是苦無常空無我等為可厭法，故不說果。對苦說因，因即可厭，故說其因。又苦諦中說苦無常對治愛行、說空無我對治見行，若說其果，無此治能，故不說果。約對治等，說因可厭，是以論之。問曰：集中具有四義，何故名中偏彰集諦，不說因等？釋言：皆得。不可並存，且以集名。又復集義攝果義顯，故偏名矣。滅中四者，謂盡、止、妙、出，亦名滅、止、妙、離。盡滅有過，故云盡滅。寂止惱患，故名為止。捨遠麁礙，稱之為妙。出離纏縛，名出名離。問曰：滅中唯有此四？更有餘義？釋言：滅中義別眾多，所謂無為、寂靜、安隱、解脫、不動、不燃、不熾、休息、無惱、清淨、快樂、無礙、無相，如是非一。今據一門，且論此四。問曰：四中以何義故偏名滅諦？釋言：皆得。不可並立，且彰滅耳。又復滅者，除遣義彰、相顯易識，故偏名之；餘止妙等，同世俗上妙出等，故不名矣。道中四者，謂道、如、迹、乘，亦名道、正、迹、乘。能通名道，如法正行名如名正，尋之趣向果故稱為迹，依之達到故說為乘。又復運通亦名為乘。問曰：道中唯有此四？更有餘義？釋言：道中義亦非一，所謂無漏、無礙、無障、安隱、解脫、出離、清淨、對治、方便、能度、至到，如是非一。今據一門，且論此四。問曰：四中以何義故偏彰道名？釋言：皆得。不可並立，且論道耳。又復道者，通到義彰、相顯易識，故偏名道。十六聖行，辨之麁爾。

In the fifth section, the sixteen noble aspects are differentiated. Within the four truths there are four aspects each; hence there are sixteen. The four within [the truth of] suffering are: suffering, impermanence, emptiness, and non-self. Oppressive vexation is called 'suffering'; the flux of painful phenomena is called 'impermanence'; because suffering is not what belongs to self, it is called 'empty'; because suffering is not the substance of self, it is called 'non-self'. Question: Are there only these four within suffering, or are there further meanings? [Answer:] The distinct meanings are numerous, as spoken in the Avataṃsaka [Sūtra]: namely, retribution, burden, fragility, enmity and poison, affliction and harm, obstruction, bondage, hindrances, impediments, difficult and painful matters, and so forth, which are more than one. Now, relying on one approach, we discuss these four for the time being. Question: Why are these four specified exclusively? Explanation: The distinct meanings within suffering are numerous; since we say 'discuss for the time being', how could one demand them all? Question: Impermanence applies generally to suffering, origin, and the path, while emptiness and non-self pervade all four truths; for what reason are they subsumed exclusively under suffering? Explanation: Dharma teachings have both general and specific aspects. In terms of the general approach, the meanings of impermanence, emptiness, and so on apply generally to the other truths. Now, in terms of the specific approach, impermanence, emptiness, and so on are antidotes to the two views of the person and the extremes, and therefore they are subsumed under suffering. What does this mean? The two views of the person and the extremes arise from delusion regarding suffering; impermanence remedies [the view of] extremes, and emptiness and non-self remedy the view of the person; therefore, according to what they counter, they are subsumed under suffering. Why do [the views of] the person and the extremes arise particularly through delusion regarding suffering? Retributive dharmas appear coarsely and their characteristics are prominent; people mostly grasp them to be a spiritual master and thereupon conceptualize annihilation or permanence; therefore, the views of the person and the extremes arise by focusing particularly on suffering. This meaning is explained in full, as in the chapter on the ten bonds. Question: Suffering possesses all four aspects; for what reason is it named exclusively the 'truth of suffering' and not named the truth of impermanence, non-self, and so forth? Explanation: Any would be admissible. They cannot all be displayed at once, so one merely speaks of 'suffering' for the time being. Even if other names were established, they would converge upon the same difficulty. Furthermore, when explained in terms of their meanings, it is not without reason. There are three semantic explanations: first, suffering is coarse and easy to perceive, recognized by all people alike, so it is named from what is easy; second, the fault of suffering is coarse and heavy, and its sense of generating revulsion is strong, so it is named exclusively; third, the meaning of suffering is uniquely specific and does not apply generally to the other truths, so it is named 'suffering' exclusively. The others—impermanence and so on—do not have such meanings, and therefore sūtras and treatises mostly do not use them as names. The four within [the truth of] origin are: cause, origin, existence, and condition. That which can generate is called 'cause'; that which gathers the fruit is called 'origin'; because it can bring about future fruits, it is evaluated as 'existence'; because retribution is obtained relying on this, it is spoken of as 'condition'. Question: Are there only these four within origin, or are there further meanings? Explanation: The distinct meanings within origin are immeasurable: namely, arising, producing, acting, originating, ceasing, emerging, depending on, relying upon, expedient means, arriving, proceeding toward, sequence, opening the way, and so forth, which are more than one. Now, relying on one approach, we discuss these four for the time being. Question: Cause and fruit are precisely correlative phenomena; why was its fruit not spoken of previously in the truth of suffering, whereas now cause is spoken of in the truth of origin? Explanation: Suffering and origin each have multiple meanings, and the names do not exhaust them; the hidden and the manifest are alternately displayed, so how could one demand them all? Furthermore, the meaning of fruit is coarse, obvious, and easy to recognize, requiring no discursive explanation, and therefore fruit was not spoken of; cause is subtle and difficult to perceive, and therefore it must be spoken of. Furthermore, if the aspect of fruit were established within suffering, there would be no way to reveal the pleasant fruits of humans and devas. Suffering, impermanence, emptiness, non-self, and so forth are phenomena to be reviled, and therefore fruit was not spoken of. In contrast to suffering, cause is spoken of, and cause is indeed to be reviled; therefore its cause is spoken of. Moreover, in the truth of suffering, suffering and impermanence are spoken of to counter the practice of craving, and emptiness and non-self are spoken of to counter the practice of views; if fruit were spoken of, it would not have this remedial efficacy, and therefore fruit was not spoken of. In terms of antidotes and so forth, cause is said to be reviled, and for this reason it is discussed. Question: Origin possesses all four meanings; why is it named exclusively the 'truth of origin' among names, and cause and the rest are not spoken of? Explanation: Any would be admissible. They cannot all be kept together, so it is temporarily named with 'origin'. Furthermore, the meaning of origin conspicuously subsumes the fruit, and so it is named exclusively. The four within [the truth of] cessation are: destruction, stilling, excellence, and escape; they are also called cessation, stilling, excellence, and departure. Because faults of existence are extinguished and destroyed, it is said to be 'destruction'. Because vexations and misfortunes are serenely quieted, it is named 'stilling'. Because coarse hindrances are abandoned and distanced, it is called 'excellence'. Because entanglements are escaped, it is called 'escape' and 'departure'. Question: Are there only these four within cessation, or are there further meanings? Explanation: The distinct meanings within cessation are numerous: namely, unconditioned, peaceful and quiet, secure, liberated, unmoving, unburned, unablaze, rest, without affliction, pure, blissful, unobstructed, signless, and so forth, which are more than one. Now, relying on one approach, we discuss these four for the time being. Question: For what reason is it named exclusively the 'truth of cessation' among the four? Explanation: Any would be admissible. They cannot be established simultaneously, so one merely displays 'cessation' for the time being. Furthermore, with 'cessation', the meaning of elimination is prominent and its characteristics are conspicuous and easy to recognize, so it is named exclusively; the remaining stilling, excellence, and so forth are shared with worldly superior excellence, departure, and so forth, and therefore it is not so named. The four within [the truth of] the path are: path, correctness, track, and vehicle; they are also called path, uprightness, track, and vehicle. That which can lead through is called 'path'; right practice in accord with the Dharma is called 'correctness' or 'uprightness'; following it to proceed toward the fruit is called 'track'; relying upon it to arrive is spoken of as 'vehicle'. Furthermore, carrying through is also called 'vehicle'. Question: Are there only these four within the path, or are there further meanings? Explanation: The meanings within the path are also not one: namely, untainted, unobstructed, unhindered, secure, liberated, departing, pure, antidote, expedient means, capable of delivering across, arriving, and so forth, which are more than one. Now, relying on one approach, we discuss these four for the time being. Question: For what reason is the name 'path' displayed exclusively among the four? Explanation: Any would be admissible. They cannot be established simultaneously, so we merely discuss 'path' for the time being. Furthermore, with 'path', the meaning of reaching through is prominent and its characteristics are conspicuous and easy to recognize, so it is named 'path' exclusively. The sixteen noble aspects are thus broadly distinguished.