淨名經集解關中疏 1.437

1.437

我即於後敷演其義。謂無常義。苦義。空義。無我義。寂滅義　二迦旃延廣演。義者義。理小乘以無常等五為理。大乘以一實相為理。由悟此理證道。非餘故云要也。肇曰。如來言說未常有心。故其所說法未嘗有相。迦旃延不喻玄旨故於入室之後皆以相說也。何則如來去常故說無常。非謂是無常。去樂故言苦。非謂是苦。去實故言空。非謂是空。去我故言無我。非謂是無我。去相故言寂滅。非謂是寂滅。此五者可謂無言之教無相之談。而迦旃延造極不同聽隨心異聞無常。則取其流動至聞寂滅。亦取其滅相。此言同旨異。迦旃延所以惑也。生曰。存旨而不在辭故曰演其義也。

"I subsequently expounded and elaborated upon their meanings: namely, the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and the meaning of tranquil extinction." The second is Kātyāyana elaborating at length. "Meaning" (yi) is principle: the Hinayana takes these five—impermanence and the rest—as principle; the Mahayana takes the one true mark as principle. Because awakening to this principle realizes the path and nothing else, it is called the "essentials." Sengzhao says: The Tathāgata's words never had a mind [of attachment], therefore the Dharma he expounded never had marks. Kātyāyana did not understand the profound intent, so after entering the room he expounded them all with marks. Why is this? The Tathāgata spoke of impermanence to remove permanence, not meaning that there is impermanence. He spoke of suffering to remove pleasure, not meaning that there is suffering. He spoke of emptiness to remove substantiality, not meaning that there is emptiness. He spoke of non-self to remove self, not meaning that there is non-self. He spoke of tranquil extinction to remove marks, not meaning that there is tranquil extinction. These five can be called the teaching of no-words, the discourse of no-marks. But Kātyāyana did not attain the ultimate; listening accords with differences in the mind, so hearing impermanence he grasped its flux, and reaching tranquil extinction he also grasped the mark of extinction. These words were the same, but the purports differed; this was why Kātyāyana was confused. Daosheng says: Retaining the purport rather than the words, hence it says "elaborated upon their meanings."