大乘義章 5.89

5.89

第二門中約教辨定。教別大小，所說亦異，於中分別凡有三種：一隱顯互論。小乘法中，唯說常樂我淨四倒，為令眾生知有為法無常苦故。然彼小中，雖見如來苦無常等，乃是正見，不名顛倒，以佛示同有為法故，是以不說無為四倒。大乘法中，唯說無常無我苦等無為四倒，為令眾生知無為法常樂我淨，趣大涅槃，故說斯倒。有為四倒，小中已說，故更不論。設使說之，與小乘同，以無異故，猶不名說。二簡大異小。小乘法中，唯說常等有為四倒；大乘法中，具說八倒。小乘不說無為四倒，義如前釋。大乘法中，欲使眾生知生死過，故須宣說有為四倒，為令眾生趣大涅槃常樂淨法，故須宣說無為四倒。三隨義具論。小乘法中具說七倒，大乘法中具說八倒。小乘七者，八倒之中除無我倒，說餘七種。彼說，凡夫於有為中具起四倒，於小涅槃起於三倒，常見無常、樂見為苦、淨見不淨。何因緣故常見無常？外道之人，取無想天以為涅槃。彼報盡已，便謂一切涅槃無常。復何因緣樂見為苦？外道心念：現見世人，或少一耳、或少一目便以為苦，況復都盡，寧非大苦？故起苦倒。是以經言「凡夫寧受癡野干身，不求泥洹，以怖畏故。」又復何因計為不淨？外道念言：現見世間，刀害死尸，刀是不淨；以道除結，道亦不淨。以不淨道所得涅槃，當知涅槃亦是不淨。又有人說：欲界身即是泥洹，又見此身不淨穢惡，謂真泥洹亦是不淨，是故宣說涅槃不淨。何故不起無我倒乎？小乘之中不說涅槃以為我故，不得翻彼說無我倒。問曰：若使小乘涅槃是常樂淨翻為倒者，何故經言小乘涅槃唯有樂淨，無有常我？釋言：有以。大乘法中，說小乘人雖入無餘，未來心想當必更生，故說小乘涅槃無常。小乘法中，但說其滅，隱生不說。故小乘人，取小涅槃以之為常。又大乘中，說小涅槃是不滿足，終須遷轉趣向大乘，故名無常。小乘教中，不云更去，故說為常。問曰：未來心想生時，何因得生？以本所修無漏業因無明為緣，是故得生，此生即是變易生矣。又問：無餘滅去心想後還生者，有餘涅槃滅去煩惱後還生不？釋言：不生。何故而然？煩惱原由見理而滅，故永不生。所滅之智，本但息滅，非見理斷，由是更生。又問：若使大乘法中說小涅槃更須遷轉名無常者，須遷轉故，應非樂淨。釋言：齊類，理亦應同，但以遷轉是無常義，故不名常。隨其所得寂滅離染，故云樂淨。小乘如是。大乘法中具說八倒，義如上辨。教別麁爾。

In the second section, [the inversions] are distinguished and determined according to the teachings. As the teachings differ between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, what they state also differs; within this, there are three distinctions in all: First, discussing them in terms of concealment and revelation. In the Hīnayāna teachings, only the four inversions of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity are taught, in order to cause sentient beings to know that conditioned dharmas are impermanent and suffering. However, in that Hīnayāna, although seeing the Tathāgata as suffering, impermanent, and so forth is correct view and not termed an inversion because the Buddha manifests as identical with conditioned dharmas, the four unconditioned inversions are therefore not taught. In the Mahāyāna teachings, only the four unconditioned inversions of impermanence, non-self, suffering, and so on are taught, in order to cause sentient beings to know that unconditioned dharmas are permanent, pleasure, self, and pure, and proceed toward great nirvāṇa; therefore these inversions are taught. The four conditioned inversions have already been taught in the Hīnayāna, so they are not discussed again. Even if they were taught, they would be identical with the Hīnayāna; because there is no difference, it is still not called [a distinct] teaching. Second, distinguishing the Mahāyāna as different from the Hīnayāna. In the Hīnayāna teachings, only the four conditioned inversions of permanence and so forth are taught; in the Mahāyāna teachings, all eight inversions are fully taught. That the Hīnayāna does not teach the four unconditioned inversions is as explained above. In the Mahāyāna teachings, wanting to cause sentient beings to know the faults of saṃsāra, it is necessary to proclaim the four conditioned inversions; and to cause sentient beings to proceed toward the permanent, pleasurable, and pure dharmas of great nirvāṇa, it is necessary to proclaim the four unconditioned inversions. Third, discussing them fully according to their principles. In the Hīnayāna teachings, seven inversions are fully taught; in the Mahāyāna teachings, eight inversions are fully taught. The seven of the Hīnayāna: among the eight inversions, the inversion of non-self is excluded, and the remaining seven are taught. They state that ordinary persons fully give rise to the four inversions regarding the conditioned, and regarding Hīnayāna nirvāṇa give rise to three inversions: seeing permanence as impermanence, seeing pleasure as suffering, and seeing purity as impurity. Due to what causes and conditions do they see permanence as impermanence? Non-Buddhists take the heaven of non-conception to be nirvāṇa; after their retribution there is exhausted, they consider all nirvāṇa to be impermanent. Furthermore, due to what causes and conditions do they see pleasure as suffering? Non-Buddhists think: 'We see in the world that if a person lacks one ear or lacks one eye, they already consider it suffering; how much more so when everything is entirely eliminated—how could that not be great suffering?' Therefore they give rise to the inversion of suffering. Thus a sūtra states: 'An ordinary person would rather receive the body of a foolish jackal than seek nirvāṇa, because of terror.' Furthermore, due to what causes do they reckon it to be impure? Non-Buddhists think: 'We see in the world that when a knife slays a corpse, the knife is impure; when one removes the fetters by means of the path, the path is also impure. Nirvana attained through an impure path must surely be impure as well.' Moreover, some say: 'The body of the desire realm is itself nirvāṇa,' and seeing that this body is impure, defiled, and vile, they consider true nirvāṇa to be impure as well; therefore they proclaim nirvāṇa to be impure. Why do they not give rise to the inversion of non-self? Because in the Hīnayāna nirvāṇa is not taught to be a self, one cannot turn against that and speak of an inversion of non-self. Question: If Hīnayāna nirvāṇa being permanent, pleasure, and pure is turned into an inversion, why do sūtras say that Hīnayāna nirvāṇa has only pleasure and purity, and does not have permanence and self? The explanation states: There is a reason. In the Mahāyāna teachings, it is said that although Hīnayāna practitioners enter [nirvāṇa] without remainder, in the future mental conceptualization must certainly arise again; therefore Hīnayāna nirvāṇa is said to be impermanent. In the Hīnayāna teachings, they only speak of cessation and conceal arising without mentioning it; therefore Hīnayāna practitioners grasp Hīnayāna nirvāṇa and take it to be permanent. Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, Hīnayāna nirvāṇa is said to be incomplete and ultimately must undergo transformation to proceed toward the Mahāyāna; therefore it is called impermanent. In the Hīnayāna teaching, it is not said that they proceed further; therefore it is said to be permanent. Question: When future mental conceptualization arises, due to what cause can it arise? It arises because it takes the previously cultivated anāsrava karma as its cause and ignorance as its condition; this arising is precisely birth by transformation. Question: If mental conceptualization that ceased in [nirvāṇa] without remainder arises again later, do the afflictions that ceased in nirvāṇa with remainder arise again later, or not? The explanation states: They do not arise. Why is this so? The afflictions originally ceased because of seeing the principle; therefore they never arise again. The wisdom that ceased had originally merely subsided, and was not severed by seeing the principle; because of this, it arises again. Question: If the Mahāyāna teachings state that Hīnayāna nirvāṇa must undergo transformation and is therefore called impermanent, then because it must undergo transformation, it should not be pleasure and purity either. The explanation states: By analogy, the principle should also be the same; however, because undergoing transformation is the definition of impermanence, it is not called permanent. In accordance with its attained quiescence and freedom from defilement, it is called pleasure and purity. The Hīnayāna is like this. In the Mahāyāna teachings, eight inversions are fully taught, with meanings as distinguished above. The differences between the teachings are roughly thus.