四教義 2.6

2.6

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.