[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四教義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929) › 2.6 # 四教義 2.6 四教義 2.6 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2.6) 四明無作四諦者，如《涅槃經》明「約一實諦而辨四諦，即是無作四實諦」，明四實不作四，故名無作。觀四即得實，故名四實諦也。《涅槃經》云：「所言苦者為無常相，是可斷相，是為實諦。如來之性非苦、非無常、非可斷相，是故為實。虛空、佛性亦復如是。」無作集、滅、道諦在下當具引。《涅槃經》此文，即無作四實諦之明說也。若能依經解此四諦，即一實諦，是為圓教所詮之理。《勝鬘經》明「無作四諦」無一實結成。《涅槃經》不云無作，皆用一實結成四諦。義既相關，今合兩經立名，故言「無作四實諦」也。問曰：《勝鬘經》明無量四聖諦、無作四聖諦，《涅槃經》亦有是說，二處經文為同、為異耶？答曰：有無量四聖諦，雖依藏識非無作。有無量四聖諦，亦依藏識即是無作。所以者何？若約無明恒沙四諦法事數論無量，即是別教所詮無量，非無作。若約法性明四諦無量，即是圓教所詮無量，無量即無作也。《大涅槃經》答迦葉明無量四諦，正約事數無量，此別教所詮也；若答文殊明四諦，即是明無作四實諦也。《勝鬘經》明二種四諦，一異未可定判。問曰：《勝鬘》明無量四諦，何故在無作四諦後？答曰：《勝鬘經》云「依無作說無量」，但依義有三種：一依果說因，因無量即是無作因也；二明依理說義，無作之理不可思量即是無量也；三依體說用，無量即是無作之數量也。若解此三義，次無作後說無量四諦，不足致疑也。問曰：無生、無作何異？真之與實何異？答曰：若覈名論義，一往難者恒強取意通釋，佛意不無，名有所主。 > Fourth, explaining the four truths of non-action: as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains, "distinguishing the four truths based on the one real truth is precisely the four real truths of non-action"; it explains that the four realities are not made into four, hence they are called "non-action." Contemplating the four, one immediately attains reality, hence they are called the "four real truths." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "What is called suffering has the characteristic of impermanence and is something to be severed; this is the real truth. The nature of the Tathāgata is neither suffering, nor impermanent, nor something to be severed; therefore it is reality. Empty space and the buddha-nature are also like this." The non-active truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path will be cited fully below. This passage from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is precisely an explicit statement of the four real truths of non-action. If one can understand these four truths in accordance with the sūtra, they are identical to the one real truth, which is the principle elucidated by the perfect teaching. The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains the "four truths of non-action" without concluding them as the one reality. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra does not say "non-action," but uses the one reality to conclude each of the four truths. Since their meanings correspond, the names from both sūtras are now combined to establish the term, hence calling them the "four real truths of non-action." Question: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra explains the immeasurable four noble truths and the four noble truths of non-action, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also has these explanations; are the texts of the two sources identical or different? Answer: There are immeasurable four noble truths which, though based on the storehouse consciousness, are not of non-action. There are also immeasurable four noble truths which, likewise based on the storehouse consciousness, are precisely of non-action. Why is this? If we discuss immeasurability in terms of the numerical items of dharmas in the four truths as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in ignorance, this is the immeasurability elucidated by the distinctive teaching, and is not of non-action. If we explain the immeasurable four truths in terms of the dharmic nature, this is the immeasurability elucidated by the perfect teaching, and immeasurability is itself non-action. In the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra, the answer to Kāśyapa explaining the immeasurable four truths is precisely in terms of the immeasurability of numerical items, which is elucidated by the distinctive teaching; whereas the answer to Mañjuśrī explaining the four truths is an explanation of the four real truths of non-action. Regarding the two kinds of four truths explained in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra, identity and difference cannot yet be definitively judged. Question: Why are the immeasurable four truths explained after the four truths of non-action in the Śrīmālādevī? Answer: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says "immeasurable is explained based on non-action," but this basis has three meanings: first, explaining the cause based on the fruit, where the immeasurable cause is the cause of non-action; second, explaining the meaning based on the principle, where the principle of non-action being inconceivable is itself immeasurable; third, explaining the function based on the substance, where the immeasurable is the numerical measure of non-action. If one understands these three meanings, there is no reason to doubt that the immeasurable four truths are explained after non-action. Question: What is the difference between non-arising and non-action? What is the difference between "true" (zhēn) and "real" (shí)? Answer: If one examines names to discuss meaning, those raising difficulties in general always force interpretations to explain it through; yet the Buddha's intent is not lacking in substance, and each name has its own focus. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2.5) - [Next: 2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2.7) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929~en-mt.2.6) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.2.6) · Pramāṇa