大智度論 四諦品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Four Truths
四諦品：須菩提問菩薩法與佛法何異、佛答一念相應慧與向道得果之喻、無礙道行與解脫道無闇蔽，自相空中云何有六道乃至諸佛之差別、佛答眾生不知自相空故作善惡無動業，佛得菩提不得五道亦不得黑白業、云何仍說地獄乃至諸佛，佛為眾生說四聖諦而一切助道善法皆入四諦分別有三寶，非四諦非四智得度而四諦平等即是涅槃、何等是四諦平等、通達實諦不墮二乘直入菩薩位、住性地不從頂墮、觀諸法如實相即觀自性空；論主釋周遍與利鈍之別、月十四十五之喻、三業二種與不動業、五道如幻如夢、黑白黑白無漏四業與非白非黑之由、結縛輕重與積塵成山之喻、何以但說苦集滅道與重病先除病之喻、四諦逐一釋義與八聖道正見如酒發藥、有人言之問與三寶之立、麁問非麁與諦智和合、四法從緣虛妄故不可言滅、道諦滅諦亦虛誑與栰喻燈滅、八法處無即平等與法相常住、空亦空不須別說與性地必望作佛、十八空中何以但說自相空與中道空之義、方便力者與大悲心深念（經＋論）
本品開卷是一個聽起來很小的問題。須菩提問：「若是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法？」——既然菩薩所行的就是佛所教的，那佛法還剩下什麼？佛的答語更小：「菩薩法亦是佛法。」差別只在一處——「佛以一念相應慧知一切法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」經隨即給了一個譬喻：「譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。」——向道的人與得果的人同是聖人，可是一個在路上，一個到了。論主把這個『到了』說得更準：「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。」不是做得不對，是還沒有遍。於是有了本論最好的一個喻：「如月十四日、十五日，雖同為月，十四日不能令大海水潮」；十五之月則「能令大海水潮」。十四的月並非不明，只是它的明還不足以動海。差的是一日，判的卻是能不能動。
問題隨即翻到底層。須菩提說：「若一切法自相空，自相空法中，云何有差別之異」——地獄餓鬼乃至諸佛的種種差別，在空裡怎麼立得住？而且「如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得！」佛的答法先全盤承認：「如是！如是！如汝所言，自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報。」承認完了才轉出那一句轉語：「眾生不知是諸法自相空，是眾生作業因緣」。——差別不在法上，在不知法的那顆心上。論主把這條線推到極處：假使眾生自己知道諸法性空，菩薩根本不必發心，「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。」整部菩薩道之所以存在，只因為這一個「不知」。而不知之中又有輕重：「若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度」；一旦「生貪欲、瞋恚，於是中起諸重業」，就成了重縛——「譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動。」微塵一一極輕，積起來卻搬不動。
接著是本品的正題：佛既有無量阿僧祇劫所習的微妙法，何以出口只是苦、集、滅、道四個字？論主答得極平實：「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。」又說：「如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」——四諦不是佛法的頂，是佛法的急。而它也不只是急：經說「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」，三寶之所以分立，也從這裡出。四諦是佛法的總收處，所以先說它，一點也不委屈。
然而經接著把這四個字自己拆了。須菩提問：是用苦諦得度，還是用苦智得度？佛答：「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度」，並直下判曰：「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」。論主怕人以為這是個笨問題，先替它分疏，再兩邊俱破：若光憑苦諦就能得道，那「一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！」——苦是眾生共有的，共有的東西不會單獨救人；若光憑苦智，「離苦則無智」——沒有所觀的境，智也立不起來。所以只能說「苦諦、苦智和合故生」。更進一層，連四諦本身也不許執：「是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實」。有人難：苦集是有漏的，說虛誑還可以，道諦無漏、滅諦無為，怎麼也虛誑？論主答得乾淨：到了要入無餘涅槃時，連道諦也知其虛誑，「以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。」至於滅，「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」燈滅不是火跑到別處去了。說四諦虛妄，不是否定四諦，是不許在四諦上再立一個可以抓住的東西。所謂平等，正是這個意思：「若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等。」而泯掉這八法之後所剩的，不是斷滅——「有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故。」
末後一段講入位。經說菩薩見「四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空」，這時「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮」。論主設一問：何以不另說「空亦空觀」才入菩薩位？答得極省：「若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。」——「一切空」這句話若真說到底，空亦空已經在裡面了，不必外加。而所觀之空，佛指名為「自性空」；論主替它排了位次：內外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，「自相空是中空。」何以取中？「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。」——自相空還留著一個可破的理在手上，行人破的時候心不會沉下去；心一沉，深空就入不了。全品最後仍落回差別：菩薩雖已通達第一義諦，卻不肯直說，因為「若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄！」所以「我今當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生」。第一義上沒有差別，說法的地方不得不有差別——四諦與差別這兩個名字，到這裡合成了一件事。
This chapter opens with a question that sounds very small. Subhūti asks: ‘If these dharmas are the bodhisattva's dharmas, what are the Buddha's dharmas?’—Since what the bodhisattva practises is what the Buddha teaches, what is left over for the Buddha's dharmas? The Buddha's answer is smaller still: ‘The bodhisattva's dharmas too are the Buddha's dharmas.’ The difference lies in one place only—‘the Buddha, having known all dharmas by the wisdom associated with a single thought, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’ The sūtra at once gives a simile: ‘Just as heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit differ, yet these two people are both sages.’—The one heading toward the path and the one who has obtained the fruit are alike sages, but one is on the road and one has arrived. The treatise-author states this ‘arrived’ more exactly: ‘Though the bodhisattva practises the six perfections as they truly are, he has not yet been able to be all-pervading, not yet able to enter every gate; therefore he is not named Buddha.’ Not that he does it wrongly; he is not yet all-pervading. From this comes one of the finest similes in the whole treatise: ‘Like the moon of the fourteenth day and of the fifteenth day: though both are the moon, the moon of the fourteenth cannot make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide’, while the moon of the fifteenth ‘can make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide’. The moon of the fourteenth is not without brightness; only its brightness is not yet enough to move the sea. The difference is one day; what is judged is whether it can move the sea.
The question at once turns over to the bottom layer. Subhūti says: ‘If all dharmas are empty of specific marks, then within dharmas empty of specific marks how can there be the difference of distinctions’—the various distinctions from the hells and hungry ghosts up to the buddhas, how can they stand within emptiness? Moreover, ‘just as the persons are unfindable, so the causes and conditions of deeds are unfindable, and the retribution too is unfindable!’ The Buddha's way of answering first concedes the whole: ‘Just so! Just so! As you say, within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution.’ Only after conceding does he turn out that one turning sentence: ‘beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks; these beings make the causes and conditions of deeds’.—The difference is not in the dharmas but in the mind that does not know the dharmas. The treatise-author pushes this line to its utmost: if beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, the bodhisattva would have no need at all to arouse the mind, ‘just as without disease there is no need of medicine, and without darkness no need of a lamp’. The whole bodhisattva path exists only because of this one ‘not knowing’. And within not knowing there is again light and heavy: ‘if they give rise only to the notion of beings and dharmas, the fetters are still light and they can easily be delivered’; once ‘they give rise to craving and anger and within these raise up heavy deeds’, it becomes heavy bondage—‘just as atoms heaped up make a mountain, hard to move’. Each atom is utterly light; heaped up, they cannot be shifted.
Then comes the chapter's proper subject: since the Buddha has the subtle and wonderful dharmas practised through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya aeons, why is what leaves his mouth only the four Chinese characters suffering, origin, cessation, path? The treatise-author answers with the utmost plainness: ‘What beings fear most urgently is nothing more than suffering; once suffering is removed, he then shows them the Buddha path.’ And he says: ‘As with a person gravely ill, removing the disease comes first as the urgent thing; afterwards one adorns his body with precious things and clothing.’—The four truths are not the summit of the Buddha-dharma; they are its urgency. And they are not only urgent: the sūtra says ‘all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths’, and the reason the Three Jewels stand distinct also issues from here. The four truths are the place where the Buddha-dharma is gathered in whole, so to speak of them first does them not the slightest wrong.
Yet the sūtra then takes these four Chinese characters apart itself. Subhūti asks: is one delivered by the truth of suffering, or by the knowledge of suffering? The Buddha answers: ‘Not by the noble truth of suffering is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of suffering is one delivered’, and pronounces straight off: ‘because these four noble truths are equal, I say they are precisely nirvāṇa’. Fearing that people will take this for a foolish question, the treatise-author first lays out its distinctions on its behalf, then refutes both sides: if one could obtain the path by the truth of suffering alone, then ‘all beings, oxen, sheep, and the rest, should also obtain the path!’—suffering is what beings have in common, and what is held in common will not on its own save anyone; if by the knowledge of suffering alone, ‘apart from suffering there is no knowledge’—without the object contemplated, knowledge too cannot stand. So one can only say ‘it is born because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together’. One layer further, even the four truths themselves may not be grasped: ‘these four dharmas, suffering and the rest, all arise from conditions and are false and unreal’. Someone objects: suffering and origin are with outflows, and to call them deceiving is acceptable, but the truth of the path is without outflows and the truth of cessation is unconditioned, so how can they too be deceiving? The treatise-author answers cleanly: when the time comes to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, even the truth of the path is known to be deceiving, and ‘by the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says’. As for cessation, ‘the cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse’. When the lamp goes out, the fire has not run off somewhere else. To call the four truths false is not to deny the four truths; it is not to allow one to set up on the four truths one more thing that can be grasped. What is called equality is precisely this meaning: ‘if there is no suffering and no knowledge of suffering, no origin and no knowledge of origin, no cessation and no knowledge of cessation, no path and no knowledge of the path, this is named the equality of the four noble truths.’ And what remains when these eight dharmas have been effaced is not annihilation—‘whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly, because they do not deceive and are not lost’.
The final passage speaks of entering the station. The sūtra says that when the bodhisattva sees that ‘the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty’, at that time ‘this is the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit’. The treatise-author sets a question: why not say separately ‘the contemplation that emptiness too is empty’ before one enters the bodhisattva's position? The answer is utterly economical: ‘If one says that dharmas are empty, this is emptiness, and emptiness too is empty; if this emptiness were not empty, it would not be named the emptiness of all.’—If the words ‘the emptiness of all’ are truly said to the end, emptiness-too-is-empty is already inside them, and need not be added from outside. And the emptiness contemplated the Buddha names ‘the emptiness of self-nature’; the treatise-author ranks it for him: inner and outer emptiness and the rest are the small emptinesses, ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses, and ‘the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness’. Why take the middle? ‘Because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and it can enter into the very deep emptiness.’—The emptiness of specific marks still leaves in the hand a principle that can be refuted, so when the practitioner refutes it his mind does not sink; once the mind sinks, the deep emptiness cannot be entered. The whole chapter at its end still falls back upon difference: though the bodhisattva has thoroughly penetrated the truth of the highest meaning, he is unwilling to state it directly, because ‘if I were to state this dharma directly, they would not believe or accept it, and would destroy the Dharma and fall into hell!’ So ‘I shall now accomplish all wholesome dharmas and adorn my body with the thirty-two marks, to lead beings on’. In the highest meaning there is no difference; in the place where the Dharma is taught there cannot but be difference—the two names, the four truths and difference, here join into one matter.
卷94 〔T25 0718b11〕
大智度論釋四諦品第八十四 【經】 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！若是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法？」 佛告須菩提：「如汝所問『是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法』者，須菩提！菩薩法亦是佛法。若知一切種，是得一切種智，斷一切煩惱習，菩薩當得是法；佛以一念相應慧知一切法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！是為菩薩、佛之差別。譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛。」 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！若一切法自相空，自相空法中，云何有差別之異——是地獄、是餓鬼、是畜生、是天、是人，是性地人、是八地人、是須陀洹人、是斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢人、是辟支佛、是菩薩、是多陀阿伽度、阿羅呵、三藐三佛陀？世尊！如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得！」 佛言：「如是！如是！如汝所言，自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報。須菩提！眾生不知是諸法自相空，是〔T25 0718c〕眾生作業因緣——若善、若惡、若無動：罪業因緣故，墮三惡道中；福業因緣故，在人、天中生；無動業因緣故，色、無色界中生。是菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜乃至十八不共法時，盡受行是助道法；如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；得已，饒益眾生。是利常不失故，不墮五道生死中。」 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，得五道生死不？」 佛言：「不得也！須菩提！」 「世尊！得業若黑、若白、若不黑不白不？」 佛言：「不也！」 「世尊！若不得，云何說是地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、須陀洹乃至阿羅漢、辟支佛、菩薩、諸佛？」 「須菩提！若眾生知諸法自相空，菩薩摩訶薩不求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不拔眾生於三惡趣，乃至五道往來生死中。須菩提！以眾生實不知諸法自性空故，不得脫五道生死；是菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空，發意求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！諸法不爾如凡夫人所著；是眾生於無所有法中，顛倒妄想分別得法——無眾生有眾生相，無色色相，無受想行識受想行識相；乃至一切有為法無所有，用顛倒妄想心，作身、口、意業因緣，往來五道生死中不得脫。是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，一切善法內般若波羅蜜中，行菩薩道，得阿耨多羅三〔T25 0719a〕藐三菩提。得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，為眾生說四聖諦——苦、苦集、苦滅、苦滅道，開示分別。一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中，用是助道善法故，分別有三寶。何等三？佛寶、法寶、僧寶。不信拒逆是三寶故，不得離五道生死。」 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！用苦聖諦得度？用苦智得度？用集聖諦得度？用集智得度？用滅聖諦得度？用滅智得度？用道聖諦得度？用道智得度？」 佛告須菩提：「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度；乃至非道聖諦得度，亦非道智得度。須菩提！是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃；不以苦聖諦，不以集、滅、道聖諦，亦不以苦智，不以集、滅、道智得涅槃。」 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！何等是四聖諦平等？」 「須菩提！若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等。復次，須菩提！是四聖諦如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故。是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，為通達實諦故，行般若波羅蜜。」 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！云何菩薩摩訶薩為通達實諦故，行般若波羅蜜時，如通達實諦故，不墮聲聞、辟支佛地，直入菩薩位中？」 佛告須菩提：「若菩薩摩訶薩如實見諸法；見已，得無所有法；得無所有法已，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。若如是觀，是時，便入菩薩位中；是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮。用是頂墮故，墮聲聞、辟支佛地。是菩薩住性地中，能生四禪、四無量心、四無色定。是菩薩住是初定地中，分別一切諸〔T25 0719b〕法，通達四聖諦：知苦，不生緣苦心；乃至知道，不生緣道心。但順阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，觀諸法如實相。」 「世尊！云何觀諸法如實相？」 佛言：「觀諸法空。」 「世尊！何等空？」 佛言：「自性空。是菩薩用如是智慧觀一切法空，無法性可見住是性中得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？無性相是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；非諸佛所作，非辟支佛所作，亦非阿羅漢所作，亦非向道人所作，亦非得果人所作，亦非菩薩所作。但眾生不知不見諸法如實相，以是事故，菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，以方便力故，為是眾生說法。」 【論】 問曰： 佛法、菩薩法大有差別：佛是一切智，菩薩未是一切智。須菩提何故生疑而問佛：「何等是諸菩薩法？何等是佛法？」 答曰： 此中佛教菩薩如佛所行，應如是行六波羅蜜等乃至一切種智。是故須菩提問：「若如佛行，與佛何異？」 佛可其意，應如是問。 色等諸法行處是同，但智慧利鈍有異。此中佛自說因緣：「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。若菩薩已入一切種智門，入諸法實相中，以一念相應智慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，斷一切煩惱習，得諸法中自在力，爾時名為佛。」 如月十四日、十五日，雖同為月，十四日不能令大海水潮；菩薩亦如是，雖有實智慧清淨，未能具足諸佛法故，不能動一切十方眾生。月十五日光明盛滿時，能令大海水潮；菩薩成佛亦如是，放大〔T25 0719c〕光明，能動十方國土眾生。 此中佛自說譬喻：「如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。」菩薩亦如是，行者名為菩薩，從初發心乃至金剛三昧；佛已得果，斷一切法中疑，無所不了，故名為佛。 須菩提復問：「自相空法中差別不可得——所謂是地獄乃至天，是性人、八人，是須陀洹乃至佛！世尊！如地獄等眾生不可得，業因緣亦應不可得。何以故？作業者不可得；業不可得故，果報亦不可得。佛云何說佛與菩薩有差別？」 佛可須菩提意，還以所問答須菩提：「眾生不知自性空法故，能起善惡業。」如經中廣說。眾生者，凡夫，未入正位人；是人我心顛倒，煩惱因緣故起諸業。業者，有三種：身、口、意。是三種業有二種：若善、若惡，若有漏、若無漏。惡業故墮三惡趣，善業故生天、人中。善業復有二種：一者、欲界繫，二者、色、無色界繫。色、無色界繫生業名不動，不動業故生色、無色界。 若眾生自知諸法性空，即時不生著心，著心不生故不起業，乃至不生色、無色界。以實不知故生。以是事故，菩薩摩訶薩盡受行布施等法乃至十八不共法，無所失、無所少；乃至用如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，大饒益眾生。眾生得是利益故，不復往來五道生死。 須菩提復問：「佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，實得是五道不？」 佛言：「不得！」 問曰： 佛先說「大利益故，不墮五道」，今云何言「不得」？ 答曰： 決定取相邪見、墮邪見。五道生死不得，但凡夫人以顛倒因緣起業，假名有〔T25 0720a〕生死五道，其實如幻、如夢。 復問：「得黑、白等四種業不？」 佛言：「不。」 「黑業」者，是不善業，果報：地獄等受苦惱處。是中眾生，以大苦惱悶極，故名為黑。 受善業果報處，所謂諸天。以其受樂隨意自在明了，故名為「白業」。是業是三界天。 善、不善業受果報處，所謂人、阿修羅等八部。此處亦受樂、亦受苦，故名為「白黑業」。 「無漏業」能破不善有漏業，能拔眾生令離善惡果報中。 問曰： 無漏業應是白，何以言非白非黑？ 答曰： 無漏法雖清淨無垢，以空、無相、無作故無所分別，不得言白。黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白。 復次，無漏業能滅一切，諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白。 須菩提復問：「若不得是四種業，云何分別是地獄乃至阿羅漢？」 若無黑業，云何說是地獄、畜生、餓鬼？若無白業，云何說是天、人？若無黑白業，云何說是阿修羅道？若無不白不黑業，云何說是須陀洹乃至阿羅漢？ 佛答：若一切眾生自知諸法自性空者，菩薩不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提意，亦不於六道中拔出眾生。何以故？眾生自知諸法性空，則無所度；譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。須菩提！今眾生實不知自相空法故，隨心取相生著，以著故染，染故隨於五欲，隨五欲故為貪所覆，貪因緣故，慳、虛誑、嫉妬、瞋恚、鬪諍，以瞋恚故，起諸罪業，無所識知。是故壽終隨業因緣生於彼處，續作生死業，常往來六道中，無復窮已。是故菩薩於諸佛及弟〔T25 0720b〕子所聞說諸法空，而慈愍眾生：「眾生以狂愚顛倒故生著，我當作佛，破眾生顛倒，令解諸法空相。」 所以者何？諸法不爾如凡人所著。眾生、法無有定實，但自於無所有中憶想分別，望有所得；無眾生中起眾生想，無色中起色想，無受、想、行、識中起識想。以狂顛倒故，是人能起身、口、意業，於六道生死中不能得脫。 若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度。生貪欲、瞋恚，於是中起諸重業，是為重縛，受此業果報，則難可得度；譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動。菩薩為是眾生故，欲破其生死因緣果報故，於般若中攝一切善法，行菩薩道，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。為眾生說四聖諦，所謂苦、苦集、苦滅、滅苦道，種種因緣開示、敷演。 問曰： 佛無量阿僧祇劫來習微妙法，所謂十八不共法，乃至無礙解脫，諸甚深業，何以但說苦、集、滅、道？ 答曰： 眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。 苦者，受五受眾身是一切苦本，性即是苦；是苦略而言之，是生、老、病等，如經中處處廣說。苦集者，愛等諸煩惱；愛是心中舊法，以是故，佛說「愛能生後身，故是苦因」，苦因即是集。若人欲捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷苦則滅，斷愛即是苦滅。 苦滅即是道，觀是五眾種種因緣，苦及苦集過罪，所謂無常、苦、空、無我，如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊等，於八聖道分中為正見，餘七事助成發起，能斷一切法中愛；如以酒〔T25 0720c〕發藥。此人於一切世間無所復貪，得離苦火，然後示以妙法。 復次，此中佛自說因緣，所謂：「於四聖諦中攝一切善法。」 有人言：「佛何以但說苦等四法？」以是故，佛說：「一切助道善法皆攝在四諦中。」 助道善法因緣故，分別有三寶。眾生不信三寶故，不得離六道生死。 問曰： 須菩提何以作是麁問，言：「為以苦滅、以苦智滅？以集滅、集智滅？」 答曰： 此非麁問！今問：「見苦等四諦體故滅？為用智故滅？」 愛等諸煩惱滅故，名有餘涅槃。若以苦諦得道，一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！若用苦智得道，離苦則無智；離苦智不名為「苦諦」，但名為「苦」。苦諦、苦智和合故生，不得言「但以苦滅」、「但以智滅」。乃至道諦亦如是。 佛答：「不以苦諦滅，亦不以苦智滅，乃至道諦、道智亦如是。我說：『是四諦平等即是滅。不用苦諦滅，不用乃至道諦滅。』」 何以故？是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性故不名為實，不實故云何能滅？ 問曰： 二諦有漏，凡夫所行法故，可是虛誑不實；道諦是無漏法，無所著，雖從因緣和合生而不虛誑；又滅諦是無為法，不從因緣有。云何言「四法皆是虛誑」？ 答曰： 初得道，知二諦是虛誑。將入無餘涅槃，亦知道諦虛誑，以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。滅諦亦無定法。如經中說：「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為。」苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。 是故佛說：「不以用苦乃至用道得滅。」 須菩提問佛：「何者是四諦平等？」 佛〔T25 0721a〕答：若無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智，是則平等。 復次，須菩提！四諦如實、不誑、不異，如、法性、法相、法住、實際，若有佛、無佛，法相常住，不用心、心數法及諸觀，但為不誑眾生故。住一切餘法皆顛倒，妄著顛倒果報生故，雖能與人天喜樂，久久皆虛妄變異；但有一法，所謂諸法實相，以不誑故，常住不滅。如是菩薩行般若波羅蜜，通達諸法實諦。 須菩提復問：「云何菩薩通達得實諦，過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位？」 佛答：若菩薩思惟籌量求諸法，無有一法可得定相，見一切法皆空——若在四諦、若不在四諦。非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡；餘在四諦。若觀如是法空，爾時，入菩薩位。 問曰： 何以不說「空亦空觀，入菩薩位」？ 答曰： 不須是說。何以故？若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。是故行是空，得入菩薩位。菩薩住是性地中，不墮頂。性地者，所謂菩薩法位。如聲聞法中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地。是法隨順無漏道，故名為性，是中住必望得道；菩薩亦如是，安住是性地中，必望作佛。能生四禪、四無量心、四無色定。是菩薩住在禪地中攝心，分別思惟籌量諸法，通達四諦——所謂知見苦，亦非緣苦生心。知苦是凡夫受身著苦因緣故，受諸憂惱；是人身皆如賊、如怨，無常、空等。得是已，即時捨，不取苦相，亦不緣苦諦，菩薩法位力故。乃至道諦亦如是。但一心迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。知是四諦藥病相對，亦〔T25 0721b〕不著是四諦，但觀諸法如實相，不作四種分別觀。 須菩提問：「云何如實觀諸法？」 佛言：「觀空。須菩提！若菩薩能觀一切法若大若小皆空，是名如實觀。」 復問：「用何等空？」 佛答：「用自相空。」 問曰： 十八空中佛何以但說自相空？ 答曰： 是中道空。內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。是菩薩得如是法，觀一切法皆空，乃至不見一法有性可住得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。觀諸法如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦自性空；非佛所作，非大菩薩所作，非阿羅漢、辟支佛所作，常寂滅相，無戲論語言。 眾生不能知見如實相，是故菩薩行般若波羅蜜，以方便力，為眾生說法。方便力者，菩薩得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦。觀是道相甚深微妙，無得無捨；用妙智慧不可得，何況可得口說！大悲心深念：「眾生以空事故，墮三惡道，受大劇苦；若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄！我今當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生，起無量無邊諸佛神通力，得成佛道，一切眾中主，於諸法得自在。若讚惡法，眾生猶尚當受，何況實法！」是菩薩如所願思惟行，為眾生說，使皆度脫。 大智度論卷第九十四
《大智度論》卷94 · T25n1509 0718b11–0721c02
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
本品題為《大智度論》釋〈四諦品〉第八十四，聖者龍樹所造，後秦龜茲國三藏鳩摩羅什所譯，在卷九十四。
經①：須菩提問何等是佛法，佛答一念相應慧與向道得果之喻、無礙道中行與解脫道中無闇蔽；自相空中云何有六道乃至諸佛之差別，佛答眾生不知自相空故作善惡無動業而受三界果報；佛得菩提不得五道、不得黑白業，而仍說地獄乃至諸佛者，以眾生實不知自性空故；得菩提已為眾生說四聖諦，一切助道善法皆入四諦而分別有三寶；非四諦非四智得度，四諦平等即是涅槃；何等是四諦平等，四諦如不異法相法性法住法位實際、有佛無佛法相常住；通達實諦不墮二乘直入菩薩位、住性地不從頂墮、於初定地通達四諦而不生緣著心；云何觀諸法如實相，佛答觀空、答自性空
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！若這些法都是菩薩法，那麼什麼是佛法呢？』
佛告訴須菩提：『如你所問「是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法」的，須菩提！菩薩法也就是佛法。若能遍知一切種，這就是得一切種智、斷一切煩惱習，菩薩應當得這法；佛以一念相應的智慧遍知一切法之後，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！這就是菩薩與佛的差別。譬如向道與得果不同，這兩種人同樣都是聖人。像這樣，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩在無礙道之中行，這就名為菩薩摩訶薩；在解脫道之中沒有一切闇蔽，這就是佛。』
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！若一切法都是自相空，在自相空的法中，怎麼會有差別之異——這是地獄、這是餓鬼、這是畜生、這是天、這是人，這是性地人、這是八地人、這是須陀洹人、這是斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢人、這是辟支佛、這是菩薩、這是多陀阿伽度、阿羅呵、三藐三佛陀？世尊！既然這些人都不可得，業因緣也就不可得，果報也就不可得！』
佛說：『是這樣！是這樣！如你所說，在自相空的法中，沒有眾生、沒有業因緣、沒有果報。須菩提！眾生不知道這些法是自相空，所以這些眾生造作業因緣——或是善、或是惡、或是無動：由罪業因緣的緣故，墮在三惡道之中；由福業因緣的緣故，生在人、天之中；由無動業因緣的緣故，生在色界、無色界之中。這菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜乃至十八不共法的時候，全都領受奉行這些助道之法；用如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；得了之後，饒益眾生。因為這利益常常不失的緣故，不墮在五道生死之中。』
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！佛得了阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之後，得五道生死嗎？』
佛說：『不得呀！須菩提！』
『世尊！得或黑、或白、或不黑不白的業嗎？』
佛說：『不得！』
『世尊！若都不得，為什麼說這是地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、須陀洹乃至阿羅漢、辟支佛、菩薩、諸佛？』
『須菩提！若眾生知道諸法自相空，菩薩摩訶薩就不求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，也不從三惡趣乃至五道往來生死之中拔出眾生。須菩提！因為眾生實在不知道諸法自性空的緣故，不得解脫五道生死；這菩薩從諸佛那裡聽聞諸法自性空，發意求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！諸法並不像凡夫人所執著的那樣；這些眾生在無所有的法之中，以顛倒妄想分別而取得法相——沒有眾生而有眾生之相，沒有色而有色相，沒有受、想、行、識而有受、想、行、識之相；乃至一切有為法本來無所有，卻用顛倒妄想的心，造作身業、口業、意業的因緣，往來五道生死之中不得解脫。這菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜的時候，把一切善法納在般若波羅蜜之中，行菩薩道，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之後，為眾生宣說四聖諦——苦、苦集、苦滅、苦滅道，開示分別。一切助道的善法都入在四聖諦之中，因為這些助道善法的緣故，分別而有三寶。哪三種？佛寶、法寶、僧寶。因為不信而拒逆這三寶的緣故，不得脫離五道生死。』
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！是用苦聖諦得度？是用苦智得度？是用集聖諦得度？是用集智得度？是用滅聖諦得度？是用滅智得度？是用道聖諦得度？是用道智得度？』
佛告訴須菩提：『不是苦聖諦得度，也不是苦智得度；乃至不是道聖諦得度，也不是道智得度。須菩提！因為這四聖諦平等的緣故，我說它就是涅槃；不是以苦聖諦，不是以集、滅、道聖諦，也不是以苦智，不是以集、滅、道智而得涅槃。』
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！什麼是四聖諦平等？』
『須菩提！若沒有苦、沒有苦智，沒有集、沒有集智，沒有滅、沒有滅智，沒有道、沒有道智，這就名為四聖諦平等。再者，須菩提！這四聖諦是如、是不異、是法相、是法性、是法住、是法位、是實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，因為它不誑不失的緣故。這菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜的時候，是為了通達實諦的緣故而行般若波羅蜜。』
須菩提向佛稟白：『世尊！菩薩摩訶薩怎樣為了通達實諦的緣故而行般若波羅蜜，而在通達實諦的時候，不墮聲聞地、辟支佛地，直接入在菩薩位之中？』
佛告訴須菩提：『若菩薩摩訶薩如實見諸法；見了之後，得無所有之法；得無所有之法後，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝的法、四聖諦所不攝的法都是空。若這樣觀察，那時就入在菩薩位之中；這就是菩薩安住在性地之中，不從頂墮落。由於這頂墮的緣故，纔墮在聲聞地、辟支佛地。這菩薩安住在性地之中，能生四禪、四無量心、四無色定。這菩薩安住在這最初的定地之中，分別一切諸法，通達四聖諦：知苦，而不生緣著苦的心；乃至知道，而不生緣著道的心。只是隨順阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之心，觀諸法如實之相。』
『世尊！怎樣觀諸法如實之相？』
佛說：『觀諸法空。』
『世尊！是什麼空？』
佛說：『是自性空。這菩薩用這樣的智慧觀一切法空，沒有法性可見而安住在這性之中，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。為什麼呢？無性之相就是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；它不是諸佛所作，不是辟支佛所作，也不是阿羅漢所作，也不是向道人所作，也不是得果人所作，也不是菩薩所作。只因眾生不知不見諸法如實之相，因為這件事的緣故，菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，以方便力的緣故，為這些眾生說法。』
論①：釋須菩提所以問佛法菩薩法之由與周遍利鈍之別、月十四十五之喻、向道得果之喻；釋自相空中差別之難與三業二種、不動業；釋不得五道而說五道者如幻如夢；釋黑白黑白無漏四種業與無漏非白非黑之二答；釋不得四業而仍分別六道之由、結縛輕重與積塵成山之喻；釋何以但說苦集滅道與重病先除病之喻；逐一釋苦集滅道四諦與八聖道正見如酒發藥；釋有人言之問與助道善法分別有三寶；釋麁問非麁與諦智和合方生；釋四法從緣虛妄故不可言滅；釋道諦滅諦亦虛誑與栰喻、離有為無無為、燈滅之喻；釋八法處無即是平等與法相常住不滅；釋空亦空不須別說、性地必望作佛與禪地中通達四諦不著四諦；釋十八空中何以但說自相空與中道空之義；釋方便力者與大悲心深念之語
論主問道：
佛法與菩薩法大有差別：佛是一切智，菩薩還不是一切智。須菩提為什麼生疑而問佛『何等是諸菩薩法？何等是佛法？』
論主答道：
這裡面佛教導菩薩要如佛所行而行，應當這樣行六波羅蜜等乃至一切種智。所以須菩提問『若如佛行，與佛何異？』
佛印可他的意思，說應當這樣問。
色等諸法所行之處是相同的，只是智慧的利鈍有差異。這裡面佛自己說出因緣：菩薩雖然如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，所以不名為佛；若菩薩已入一切種智之門，入在諸法實相之中，以一念相應的智慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，斷一切煩惱習，得諸法之中的自在力，那時纔名為佛。
如同月的十四日與十五日，雖然同樣是月，十四日的月不能使大海水潮；菩薩也是這樣，雖有真實清淨的智慧，因為未能具足諸佛之法的緣故，不能震動一切十方眾生。月到十五日光明盛滿的時候，能使大海水潮；菩薩成佛也是這樣，放大光明，能震動十方國土的眾生。
這裡面佛自己說出譬喻：如向道與得果，雖然同樣是聖人而有差別。菩薩也是這樣，正在行的人名為菩薩，從初發心一直到金剛三昧；佛已經得果，斷了一切法之中的疑，沒有不了達的，所以名為佛。
須菩提再問：『自相空的法中差別不可得——就是說這是地獄乃至天，這是性人、八人，這是須陀洹乃至佛！世尊！既然地獄等眾生不可得，業因緣也應當不可得。為什麼呢？造業的人不可得；業不可得的緣故，果報也不可得。佛為什麼說佛與菩薩有差別？』
佛印可須菩提的意思，就用他所問的來回答須菩提：眾生不知自性空之法的緣故，能起善惡之業。如經中廣說。
所謂眾生，就是凡夫，還沒有入正位的人；這種人我心顛倒，由煩惱因緣的緣故而起諸業。所謂業，有三種：身業、口業、意業。這三種業又有二種：或善、或惡，或有漏、或無漏。因惡業的緣故墮三惡趣，因善業的緣故生在天、人之中。善業又有二種：一者是欲界繫，二者是色界、無色界繫。色界、無色界繫的生業名為不動，因不動業的緣故生在色界、無色界。
若眾生自己知道諸法性空，當下就不生執著之心，執著之心不生的緣故就不起業，乃至不生在色界、無色界。因為實在不知道的緣故而受生。因為這件事的緣故，菩薩摩訶薩完全領受奉行布施等法乃至十八不共法，無所遺失、無所缺少；乃至用如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，大大饒益眾生。眾生得到這利益的緣故，不再往來五道生死。
須菩提再問：『佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提的時候，實在得這五道嗎？』
佛說：『不得！』
論主問道：
佛先前說因為大利益的緣故不墮五道，如今為什麼說『不得』？
論主答道：
決定取相是邪見，那就墮在邪見之中。五道生死本不可得，只是凡夫人以顛倒的因緣而起業，假名說有生死五道，其實如幻、如夢。
再問：『得黑業、白業等四種業嗎？』
佛說：『不得。』
所謂黑業，是不善業，果報就是地獄等受苦惱之處。這其中的眾生，因大苦惱而悶絕至極，所以名為黑。
領受善業果報的地方，就是諸天。因為他們受樂隨意、自在明了，所以名為白業。這業是三界之中的天。
領受善業與不善業果報的地方，就是人、阿修羅等八部。這地方也受樂、也受苦，所以名為白黑業。
所謂無漏業，能破不善的有漏業，能拔出眾生使他脫離善惡果報之中。
論主問道：
無漏業應當是白，為什麼說它非白非黑？
論主答道：
無漏之法雖然清淨無垢，但因為它空、無相、無作的緣故，無所分別，所以不得說它是白。黑與白是相待而立之法，這其中沒有相待的緣故，所以不得說它是白。
再者，無漏業能滅一切；在諸觀之中有分別的緣故纔有黑、有白，這其中沒有觀的緣故，所以沒有白。
須菩提再問：『若不得這四種業，怎麼分別這是地獄乃至阿羅漢？』
若沒有黑業，怎麼說這是地獄、畜生、餓鬼？若沒有白業，怎麼說這是天、人？若沒有黑白業，怎麼說這是阿修羅道？若沒有不白不黑業，怎麼說這是須陀洹乃至阿羅漢？
佛回答：若一切眾生自己知道諸法自性空，菩薩就不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之意，也不在六道之中拔出眾生。為什麼呢？眾生自己知道諸法性空，就沒有可度的了；譬如沒有病就不須用藥，沒有闇就不須用燈明。須菩提！如今眾生實在不知道自相空之法的緣故，隨著心取相而生執著，因執著的緣故而染，因染的緣故而隨順五欲，因隨順五欲的緣故被貪所覆蓋，由貪的因緣而有慳吝、虛誑、嫉妬、瞋恚、鬪諍，因瞋恚的緣故，起種種罪業，全無所識知。所以壽終之後隨業因緣生在他處，繼續造作生死之業，常常往來六道之中，再沒有窮盡。所以菩薩在諸佛及弟子那裡聽聞宣說諸法空，而慈愍眾生：眾生因狂愚顛倒的緣故而生執著，我應當作佛，破除眾生的顛倒，使他們解了諸法空相。
為什麼這樣說呢？諸法並不像凡人所執著的那樣。眾生與法都沒有決定的實體，只是自己在無所有之中憶想分別，指望有所得；在沒有眾生之中起眾生之想，在沒有色之中起色想，在沒有受、想、行、識之中起識想。因為狂亂顛倒的緣故，這種人能起身業、口業、意業，在六道生死之中不能得脫。
若只是生起眾生與法之想，結縛還輕，容易得度。若生起貪欲、瞋恚，在這裡面造作種種重業，這就是重縛，領受這業的果報，就難可得度；譬如積聚微塵而成山，難可移動。菩薩為了這些眾生的緣故，想要破除他們生死的因緣果報的緣故，在般若之中總攝一切善法，行菩薩道，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。為眾生宣說四聖諦，就是苦、苦集、苦滅、滅苦道，以種種因緣開示、敷演。
論主問道：
佛從無量阿僧祇劫以來修習微妙之法，就是十八不共法乃至無礙解脫等諸甚深之業，為什麼只說苦、集、滅、道？
論主答道：
眾生所畏懼急切的，沒有超過苦的；為了除苦之後，然後纔示以佛道。如同人得了重病，先以除病為急；然後纔用寶物、衣服莊嚴他的身體。
所謂苦，領受五受眾之身就是一切苦的根本，它的體性就是苦；這苦簡略而言，就是生、老、病等，如經中處處廣說。所謂苦集，就是愛等諸煩惱；愛是心中的舊法，因為這個緣故，佛說愛能生後身，所以是苦因，苦因就是集。若人想要捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷則苦滅，斷愛就是苦滅。
苦滅就是道，觀察這五眾的種種因緣，觀苦以及苦集的過罪，就是無常、苦、空、無我，如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊等，在八聖道分之中以正見為首，其餘七事助成而發起，能斷一切法之中的愛；如同用酒來發散藥力。這人對於一切世間不再有所貪著，得離苦火，然後纔示以妙法。
再者，這裡面佛自己說出因緣，就是在四聖諦之中總攝一切善法。
有人說：『佛為什麼只說苦等四法？』因為這個緣故，佛說一切助道的善法都總攝在四諦之中。
由助道善法的因緣，分別而有三寶。眾生因為不信三寶的緣故，不得脫離六道生死。
論主問道：
須菩提為什麼作這樣粗淺的問，說『為以苦滅、以苦智滅？以集滅、集智滅？』
論主答道：
這不是粗淺的問！他如今所問的是：是見苦等四諦之體纔滅？還是用智纔滅？
愛等諸煩惱滅的緣故，名為有餘涅槃。若是以苦諦得道，一切眾生乃至牛羊等也應當得道！若是用苦智得道，離開苦就沒有智可說；離開苦智也不名為苦諦，只名為苦。苦諦與苦智和合的緣故纔生，不得說只以苦滅、只以智滅。乃至道諦也是這樣。
佛回答：不是以苦諦滅，也不是以苦智滅，乃至道諦、道智也是這樣。我說這四諦平等就是滅，不用苦諦滅，不用乃至道諦滅。
為什麼呢？這苦等四法都是從緣而生，虛妄不實，沒有自性的緣故不名為實，既然不實，怎麼能滅？
論主問道：
二諦是有漏，是凡夫所行之法的緣故，可以說是虛誑不實；道諦是無漏之法，無所執著，雖從因緣和合而生卻不虛誑；又滅諦是無為之法，不從因緣而有。怎麼說四法都是虛誑？
論主答道：
初得道的時候，知道二諦是虛誑。將要入無餘涅槃的時候，也知道道諦是虛誑，用空空三昧等捨離道諦，如同所說的栰喻。滅諦也沒有決定之法。如經中說：離開有為，就沒有無為，因為有為的緣故纔說無為。苦滅如同燈滅，不應戲論而尋求它的處所。
所以佛說：不是以用苦乃至用道而得滅。
須菩提問佛：『什麼是四諦平等？』
佛回答：若沒有八法之處——就是四諦與四諦智，這就是平等。
再者，須菩提！四諦是如實、不誑、不異，是如、是法性、是法相、是法住、是實際，不論有佛、無佛，法相常住，不用心、心數法以及諸觀，只是為了不誑眾生的緣故。安住在其餘一切法之上的都是顛倒，因為妄著顛倒的果報而生的緣故，雖然能給與人天喜樂，久而久之都虛妄變異；只有一法，就是諸法實相，因為不誑的緣故，常住不滅。這樣菩薩行般若波羅蜜，通達諸法的實諦。
須菩提再問：『菩薩怎樣通達而得實諦，超過聲聞地、辟支佛地，入菩薩位？』
佛回答：若菩薩思惟籌量而求諸法，沒有一法可得決定之相，見一切法都空——不論是在四諦之中、或是不在四諦之中。所謂不是四諦的，就是虛空、非數緣盡；其餘的都在四諦之中。若這樣觀法空，那時就入菩薩位。
論主問道：
為什麼不說『空亦空觀，入菩薩位』？
論主答道：
不須這樣說。為什麼呢？若說諸法空，這空當下就是空，空也是空；若這空是不空，就不名為一切空。所以行這個空，就得入菩薩位。菩薩安住在這性地之中，不墮頂。所謂性地，就是菩薩法位。如同聲聞法之中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地。這些法隨順無漏道，所以名為性，安住在這裡面必定可望得道；菩薩也是這樣，安住在這性地之中，必定可望作佛。能生四禪、四無量心、四無色定。這菩薩安住在禪地之中攝心，分別思惟籌量諸法，通達四諦——就是知見苦，也不緣著苦而生心。他知道苦是凡夫領受身而執著苦因緣的緣故，纔領受種種憂惱；這人的身都如賊、如怨，是無常、是空等。得了這智之後，當下就捨，不取苦相，也不緣著苦諦，是菩薩法位之力的緣故。乃至道諦也是這樣。只是一心迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。他知道這四諦是藥與病相對而立，也不執著這四諦，只觀諸法如實之相，不作四種分別之觀。
須菩提問：『怎樣如實觀諸法？』
佛說：『觀空。須菩提！若菩薩能觀一切法或大或小都是空，這名為如實觀。』
再問：『用什麼空？』
佛回答：『用自相空。』
論主問道：
十八空之中佛為什麼只說自相空？
論主答道：
這是中道空。內空、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是居中之空。自相有理可破的緣故而心不沈沒，因而能入甚深空之中。這菩薩得了這樣的法，觀一切法都空，乃至不見有一法有性可住而得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。他觀諸法如同阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，而阿耨多羅三藐三菩提也是自性空；不是佛所作，不是大菩薩所作，不是阿羅漢、辟支佛所作，常是寂滅之相，沒有戲論言語。
眾生不能知見如實之相，所以菩薩行般若波羅蜜，以方便之力，為眾生說法。所謂方便力，就是菩薩得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩的第一義諦。他觀這道相甚深微妙，無所得也無所捨；所用的妙智慧尚且不可得，何況可以用口說得出來！他以大悲之心深深繫念：眾生因虛妄無實之事的緣故，墮三惡道，受大劇苦；若我直接宣說這法，他們就不信不受，於是破壞法，墮在地獄之中！我如今應當成就一切善法、以三十二相莊嚴其身，引導眾生，起無量無邊諸佛的神通力，得成佛道，作一切眾中之主，於諸法得自在。若讚歎惡法，眾生尚且會領受，何況是真實之法！這菩薩依所發之願思惟而行，為眾生宣說，使他們都得度脫。
This chapter is titled the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa's commentary on the eighty-fourth chapter, "The Four Truths", composed by the noble Nāgārjuna and translated by the Tripiṭaka master Kumārajīva of the land of Kucha under the Later Qin; it is in the ninety-fourth fascicle.
Sūtra ①: Subhūti Asks What the Dharmas of the Buddha Are, and the Buddha Answers with the Wisdom Associated with a Single Thought and the Simile of Heading toward the Path and Obtaining the Fruit, with Practising within the Path without Obstruction and Being without Obscuration within the Path of Liberation; How within the Emptiness of Specific Marks There Can Be the Distinctions from the Six Destinies up to the Buddhas, and the Buddha Answers That Because Beings Do Not Know the Emptiness of Specific Marks They Make Wholesome, Evil, and Unmoving Deeds and Receive the Retribution of the Three Realms; That the Buddha, Having Obtained Awakening, Does Not Obtain the Five Destinies and Does Not Obtain Black or White Deeds, and yet Still Speaks of the Hells up to the Buddhas, Is Because Beings Truly Do Not Know the Emptiness of Self-Nature; Having Obtained Awakening He Teaches the Four Noble Truths for Beings, All the Wholesome Dharmas That Aid the Path Enter the Four Truths, and So the Three Jewels Are Distinguished; It Is Neither by the Four Truths nor by the Four Knowledges That One Is Delivered, and the Equality of the Four Truths Is Precisely Nirvāṇa; What the Equality of the Four Truths Is: the Four Truths Are Suchness, Not-Different, the Mark of Dharmas, the Nature of Dharmas, the Abiding of Dharmas, the Position of Dharmas, and the Limit of Reality, and Whether There Is a Buddha or No Buddha the Marks of Dharmas Abide Constantly; Penetrating the Real Truth, He Does Not Fall into the Two Vehicles but Enters Directly into the Bodhisattva's Position, Abides in the Ground of the Stage of Nature and Does Not Fall from the Summit, and on the First Ground of Concentration Penetrates the Four Truths without Giving Rise to a Mind That Takes Them as Object and Clings; How One Contemplates the Mark of Dharmas as It Truly Is, and the Buddha Answers: Contemplate Emptiness, and Answers: the Emptiness of Self-Nature
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If these dharmas are all the bodhisattva's dharmas, then what are the dharmas of the Buddha?’
The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘As for what you asked, 「是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法」 tr. "these dharmas are the bodhisattva's dharmas; what are the dharmas of the Buddha", Subhūti! The bodhisattva's dharmas are also the dharmas of the Buddha. If one can universally know all kinds, this is obtaining the omniscience of all kinds and severing all the afflictions and their habitual residues; the bodhisattva should obtain this dharma. The Buddha, having universally known all dharmas by the wisdom associated with a single thought, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Subhūti! This is the difference between the bodhisattva and the Buddha. It is just as heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit are not the same, yet these two kinds of people are alike both sages. Like this, Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction; this is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva. Within the path of liberation there is no obscuration of any kind; this is the Buddha.’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of specific marks, how, within dharmas empty of specific marks, can there be the difference of distinctions—this is the hells, this is the hungry ghosts, this is the animals, this is the gods, this is humans, this is the person at the stage of nature, this is the person of the eighth ground, this is the srota-āpanna person, this is the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, the arhat person, this is the pratyekabuddha, this is the bodhisattva, this is the tathāgata, arhat, samyaksaṃbuddha? World-Honored One! Since these persons are all unfindable, the causes and conditions of deeds are likewise unfindable, and retribution is likewise unfindable!’
The Buddha said: ‘Just so! Just so! As you say, within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution. Subhūti! Beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks; therefore these beings make the causes and conditions of deeds—whether wholesome, whether evil, whether unmoving: because of the causes and conditions of sinful deeds, they fall into the three evil destinies; because of the causes and conditions of meritorious deeds, they are born among humans and gods; because of the causes and conditions of unmoving deeds, they are born in the form realm and the formless realm. When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises dānapāramitā and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, he receives and practises all these dharmas that aid the path in full; by the like-vajra samādhi he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; having obtained it, he enriches beings. Because this benefit is never lost, he does not fall into the birth and death of the five destinies.’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! After the Buddha has obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, does he obtain the birth and death of the five destinies?’
The Buddha said: ‘He does not obtain them! Subhūti!’
‘World-Honored One! Does he obtain deeds, whether black, whether white, whether neither black nor white?’
The Buddha said: ‘He does not obtain them!’
‘World-Honored One! If he obtains none of them, why do you say this is the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals, humans, gods, the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva, the buddhas?’
‘Subhūti! If beings knew that dharmas are empty of specific marks, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva would not seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor would he pull beings out from the three evil courses and so on up to the going and coming of birth and death in the five destinies. Subhūti! Because beings truly do not know that dharmas are empty of self-nature, they do not obtain liberation from the birth and death of the five destinies; this bodhisattva, having heard from the buddhas that dharmas are empty of self-nature, arouses the intent to seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Subhūti! Dharmas are not as ordinary people cling to them; within dharmas without anything existent, these beings grasp the marks of dharmas by inverted false thinking and discrimination—where there are no beings they have the mark of beings, where there is no form they have the mark of form, where there are no feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness they have the marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; and so on up to all conditioned dharmas, which are originally without anything existent, yet with an inverted and falsely thinking mind they make the causes and conditions of bodily deeds, verbal deeds, and mental deeds, and go and come within the birth and death of the five destinies without obtaining liberation. When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he takes all wholesome dharmas into prajñāpāramitā, practises the bodhisattva path, and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Having obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he proclaims the four noble truths for beings—suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the path to the cessation of suffering—opening them up, showing them, and distinguishing them. All the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths; because of these wholesome dharmas that aid the path, the Three Jewels are distinguished. What are the three? The Buddha Jewel, the Dharma Jewel, the Saṅgha Jewel. Because they do not believe in these Three Jewels and reject them, they do not obtain release from the birth and death of the five destinies.’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Is it by the noble truth of suffering that one is delivered? Is it by the knowledge of suffering that one is delivered? Is it by the noble truth of origin that one is delivered? Is it by the knowledge of origin that one is delivered? Is it by the noble truth of cessation that one is delivered? Is it by the knowledge of cessation that one is delivered? Is it by the noble truth of the path that one is delivered? Is it by the knowledge of the path that one is delivered?’
The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘It is not by the noble truth of suffering that one is delivered, nor is it by the knowledge of suffering that one is delivered; and so on up to: it is not by the noble truth of the path that one is delivered, nor is it by the knowledge of the path that one is delivered. Subhūti! Because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa; it is not by the noble truth of suffering, not by the noble truths of origin, cessation, and the path, nor by the knowledge of suffering, not by the knowledges of origin, cessation, and the path, that nirvāṇa is obtained.’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is the equality of the four noble truths?’
‘Subhūti! If there is no suffering and no knowledge of suffering, no origin and no knowledge of origin, no cessation and no knowledge of cessation, no path and no knowledge of the path, this is named the equality of the four noble truths. Again, Subhūti! These four noble truths are suchness, are not-different, are the mark of dharmas, are the nature of dharmas, are the abiding of dharmas, are the position of dharmas, are the limit of reality; whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly, because they do not deceive and are not lost. When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is for the sake of penetrating the real truth that he practises prajñāpāramitā.’
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of penetrating the real truth, so that at the time of penetrating the real truth he does not fall into the ground of the śrāvaka or the ground of the pratyekabuddha, but enters directly into the bodhisattva's position?’
The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva sees dharmas as they truly are; having seen them, he obtains the dharma without anything existent; having obtained the dharma without anything existent, he sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty. If he contemplates like this, at that time he enters into the bodhisattva's position; this is the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit. It is because of this summit-fall that one falls into the ground of the śrāvaka or the ground of the pratyekabuddha. This bodhisattva, abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, can give rise to the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions. This bodhisattva, abiding in this first ground of concentration, discriminates all dharmas and penetrates the four noble truths: he knows suffering, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes suffering as its object and clings to it; and so on up to: he knows the path, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes the path as its object and clings to it. He only accords with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is.’
‘World-Honored One! How does one contemplate the mark of dharmas as it truly is?’
The Buddha said: ‘Contemplate that dharmas are empty.’
‘World-Honored One! What emptiness is it?’
The Buddha said: ‘It is the emptiness of self-nature. This bodhisattva, with such wisdom, contemplates all dharmas as empty; there is no nature of dharmas to be seen, and yet he abides within this nature and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? The mark of being without nature is precisely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; it is not made by the buddhas, not made by the pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the arhats, nor made by those heading toward the path, nor made by those who have obtained the fruit, nor made by the bodhisattvas. It is only because beings do not know and do not see the mark of dharmas as it truly is—because of this matter the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and, because of the power of skilful means, teaches the Dharma for these beings.’
Treatise ①: Explaining Why Subhūti Asked about the Dharmas of the Buddha and the Dharmas of the Bodhisattva, and the Difference between Being All-Pervading or Not and between Sharp and Dull; the Simile of the Moon of the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Day; the Simile of Heading toward the Path and Obtaining the Fruit; Explaining the Difficulty of Distinctions within the Emptiness of Specific Marks, the Three Kinds of Deeds with Their Two Kinds, and Unmoving Deeds; Explaining That Speaking of the Five Destinies While Not Obtaining Them Is like an Illusion, like a Dream; Explaining the Four Kinds of Deeds—Black, White, Black-and-White, and without Outflows—and the Two Answers on Why Deeds without Outflows Are Neither White nor Black; Explaining Why, though the Four Deeds Are Not Obtained, the Six Destinies Are Still Distinguished, the Lightness and Heaviness of the Fetters, and the Simile of Atoms Heaped Up into a Mountain; Explaining Why Only Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and Path Are Spoken Of, and the Simile of First Removing the Disease in Grave Illness; Explaining the Four Truths of Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and Path One by One, and Right View in the Eightfold Noble Path Being like Wine That Spreads a Medicine; Explaining the Question of ‘Someone Says’ and the Three Jewels Distinguished through the Wholesome Dharmas That Aid the Path; Explaining That the Coarse Question Is Not Coarse, and That Truth and Knowledge Arise Only by Coming Together; Explaining That the Four Dharmas, Being False because Born from Conditions, Cannot Be Said to Bring Cessation; Explaining That the Truth of the Path and the Truth of Cessation Too Are False and Deceptive, the Simile of the Raft, That apart from the Conditioned There Is No Unconditioned, and the Simile of the Going Out of a Lamp; Explaining That Where There Is None of the Eight Dharmas This Is Precisely Equality, and That the Marks of Dharmas Abide Constantly and Do Not Cease; Explaining That ‘Emptiness Too Is Empty’ Need Not Be Said Separately, That in the Ground of the Stage of Nature One Surely Hopes to Become a Buddha, and That on the Ground of Dhyāna One Penetrates the Four Truths without Clinging to the Four Truths; Explaining Why among the Eighteen Emptinesses Only the Emptiness of Specific Marks Is Spoken Of, and the Meaning of the Emptiness of the Middle Way; Explaining the Words on the Power of Skilful Means and on the Deep Thought of the Mind of Great Compassion
The treatise-author asks:
The dharmas of the Buddha and the dharmas of the bodhisattva differ greatly: the Buddha is omniscience, while the bodhisattva is not yet omniscience. Why did Subhūti give rise to doubt and ask the Buddha, ‘What are the dharmas of the bodhisattvas? What are the dharmas of the Buddha?’
The treatise-author answers:
Herein the Buddha teaches the bodhisattva to practise as the Buddha practises, that he should practise the six perfections and the rest in this way, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. Therefore Subhūti asks, ‘If he practises as the Buddha does, how does he differ from the Buddha?’
The Buddha assents to his intent, saying that he ought to ask in this way.
The places where form and the other dharmas are practised are the same; only the sharpness or dullness of wisdom differs. Herein the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: although the bodhisattva practises the six perfections as they truly are, he has not yet been able to be all-pervading, has not yet been able to enter every gate, and therefore he is not named Buddha; if the bodhisattva has entered the gate of the omniscience of all kinds, has entered into the real mark of all dharmas, has obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi by the wisdom associated with a single thought, has severed all the afflictions and their habitual residues, and has obtained the power of mastery within all dharmas, only then is he named Buddha.
It is like the moon of the fourteenth day and of the fifteenth day: though both are equally the moon, the moon of the fourteenth day cannot make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide. The bodhisattva too is like this: though he has true and pure wisdom, because he has not yet made complete the dharmas of the buddhas, he cannot shake all the beings of the ten directions. When the moon reaches the fifteenth day and its brightness is full, it can make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide; the bodhisattva who becomes a Buddha is also like this: he emits great light and can shake the beings of the lands of the ten directions.
Herein the Buddha himself states a simile: as heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, though both are equally sages, still differ. The bodhisattva too is like this: the one who is in the midst of practising is named a bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind all the way up to the vajra samādhi; the Buddha has already obtained the fruit and has severed the doubts within all dharmas, there being nothing he has not thoroughly understood, and therefore he is named Buddha.
Subhūti asks again: ‘Within dharmas empty of specific marks, distinctions are unfindable—that is to say, this is the hells and so on up to the gods, this is the person of nature, the person of the eight, this is the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha! World-Honored One! Since beings such as those of the hells are unfindable, the causes and conditions of deeds should also be unfindable. Why? The person who makes deeds is unfindable; because deeds are unfindable, retribution too is unfindable. Why does the Buddha say that there is a difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva?’
The Buddha assents to Subhūti's intent and answers Subhūti with the very thing he asked: because beings do not know the dharma of the emptiness of self-nature, they can raise up wholesome and evil deeds. This is as spoken at length in the sūtra.
As for ‘beings’: they are ordinary people, those who have not yet entered the right position; in such people the mind of self is inverted, and because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions they raise up deeds. As for ‘deeds’: there are three kinds: bodily deeds, verbal deeds, mental deeds. These three kinds of deeds are again of two kinds: whether wholesome, whether evil; whether with outflows, whether without outflows. Because of evil deeds one falls into the three evil courses; because of wholesome deeds one is born among gods and humans. Wholesome deeds are again of two kinds: first, bound to the desire realm; second, bound to the form realm and the formless realm. The deeds of birth bound to the form realm and the formless realm are named unmoving; because of unmoving deeds one is born in the form realm and the formless realm.
If beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, then and there they would not give rise to a clinging mind; because the clinging mind does not arise, they would not raise up deeds, and so on up to: they would not be born in the form realm or the formless realm. It is because they truly do not know that they receive birth. Because of this matter, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva receives and practises in full giving and the other dharmas, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, with nothing omitted and nothing lacking; and so on up to: by the like-vajra samādhi he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and greatly enriches beings. Because beings obtain this benefit, they no longer go and come within the birth and death of the five destinies.
Subhūti asks again: ‘When the Buddha obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, does he really obtain these five destinies?’
The Buddha said: ‘He does not obtain them!’
The treatise-author asks:
The Buddha said earlier that because of the great benefit he does not fall into the five destinies; why does he now say ‘does not obtain them’?
The treatise-author answers:
To grasp at marks as fixed is a wrong view, and then one falls into wrong views. The birth and death of the five destinies are originally unfindable; it is only that ordinary people raise up deeds through the causes and conditions of inversion, and by provisional names it is said that there are birth and death and the five destinies; in reality they are like an illusion, like a dream.
He asks again: ‘Does he obtain the four kinds of deeds, black deeds, white deeds, and the rest?’
The Buddha said: ‘He does not obtain them.’
As for ‘black deeds’: they are unwholesome deeds, and their retribution is the hells and the other places where suffering and vexation are undergone. The beings within them, because of great suffering and vexation, swoon away to the utmost; therefore it is named black.
The place where the retribution of wholesome deeds is received is the gods. Because they receive pleasure at will, being sovereign and clear, it is named white deeds. These deeds are the gods within the three realms.
The place where the retribution of both wholesome and unwholesome deeds is received is humans, asuras, and the rest of the eight classes. This place undergoes both pleasure and suffering; therefore it is named black-and-white deeds.
As for ‘deeds without outflows’: they can break unwholesome deeds with outflows and can pull beings out, so that they are free from the retribution of wholesome and evil.
The treatise-author asks:
Deeds without outflows ought to be white; why are they said to be neither white nor black?
The treatise-author answers:
Although dharmas without outflows are pure and without stain, because they are emptiness, the signless, and non-action, there is nothing in them that discriminates, and therefore one may not say that they are white. Black and white are dharmas that stand over against each other; because herein there is no standing over against each other, one may not say that they are white.
Again, deeds without outflows can extinguish everything; it is because there is discrimination within the contemplations that there is black and there is white; because herein there is no contemplation, there is no white.
Subhūti asks again: ‘If these four kinds of deeds are not obtained, how does one distinguish this is the hells and so on up to this is the arhat?’
If there are no black deeds, how does one say this is the hells, the animals, the hungry ghosts? If there are no white deeds, how does one say this is the gods, humans? If there are no black-and-white deeds, how does one say this is the destiny of the asuras? If there are no deeds neither white nor black, how does one say this is the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat?
The Buddha answers: if all beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of self-nature, the bodhisattva would not arouse the intent of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor would he pull beings out from within the six destinies. Why? If beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, there would be no one to be delivered; just as without disease there is no need to use medicine, and without darkness there is no need to use the light of a lamp. Subhūti! Now, because beings truly do not know the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, following the mind they grasp at marks and give rise to clinging; because of clinging they are tainted; because they are tainted they follow the five desires; because they follow the five desires they are covered by craving; through the causes and conditions of craving there are stinginess, falsehood, jealousy, anger, and quarrelling; because of anger they raise up all kinds of sinful deeds, with no awareness or knowledge whatever. Therefore, at the end of their lives, they are born elsewhere according to the causes and conditions of their deeds, go on making the deeds of birth and death, and constantly go and come within the six destinies, with no end ever again. Therefore the bodhisattva, hearing the emptiness of dharmas proclaimed in the presence of the buddhas and their disciples, kindly pities beings: beings, because of madness, folly, and inversion, give rise to clinging; I should become a Buddha, break the inversions of beings, and cause them to understand the mark of the emptiness of dharmas.
Why is it said like this? Dharmas are not as ordinary people cling to them. Beings and dharmas both have no fixed real substance; it is only that they themselves, within what is without anything existent, recollect, imagine, and discriminate, hoping for something to be attained; where there are no beings they raise up the notion of beings, where there is no form they raise up the notion of form, where there are no feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness they raise up the notion of consciousness. Because of madness, confusion, and inversion, such people can raise up bodily deeds, verbal deeds, and mental deeds, and cannot obtain release from within the birth and death of the six destinies.
If they give rise only to the notion of beings and dharmas, the fetters are still light, and they are easily delivered. If they give rise to craving and anger, and within these make all kinds of heavy deeds, this is heavy bondage; receiving the retribution of these deeds, they are hard to deliver; just as atoms heaped up make a mountain, hard to move. The bodhisattva, for the sake of these beings, because he wishes to break the causes, conditions, and retribution of their birth and death, gathers together all wholesome dharmas within prajñā, practises the bodhisattva path, and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. He proclaims the four noble truths for beings, namely suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the path that extinguishes suffering, opening them up, showing them, and expounding them through all kinds of causes and conditions.
The treatise-author asks:
The Buddha, from immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas onward, has cultivated and trained in subtle and wonderful dharmas, namely the eighteen unshared dharmas and so on up to unobstructed liberation and all the other very deep deeds; why does he speak only of suffering, origin, cessation, and path?
The treatise-author answers:
What beings fear most urgently is nothing more than suffering; once suffering has been removed for them, only then are they shown the Buddha path. It is as when a person has a grave illness: removing the disease comes first as the urgent thing; only afterwards does one adorn his body with precious things and clothing.
As for ‘suffering’: receiving a body of the five aggregates of clinging is the root of all suffering, and its very nature is suffering; this suffering, briefly stated, is birth, old age, sickness, and the rest, as is said at length everywhere in the sūtras. As for ‘the origin of suffering’: it is craving and the other afflictions; craving is an old dharma within the mind, and for this reason the Buddha says that craving can give birth to the later body, and so is the cause of suffering; the cause of suffering is precisely origin. If a person wishes to relinquish suffering, he should first sever craving; when craving is severed, suffering ceases; severing craving is precisely the cessation of suffering.
The cessation of suffering is precisely the path: contemplating all kinds of causes and conditions of these five aggregates, contemplating the faults and wrongs of suffering and of the origin of suffering, namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, like a disease, like a sore, like an enemy, like a thief, and so on; within the eightfold noble path, right view is at its head, and the other seven matters help to accomplish it and set it going, and it can sever the craving within all dharmas; as wine is used to spread the strength of a medicine. This person no longer craves anything at all in all the world and obtains release from the fire of suffering; only then is he shown the wonderful Dharma.
Again, herein the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions, namely that within the four noble truths all wholesome dharmas are gathered together.
Someone says: ‘Why does the Buddha speak only of the four dharmas, suffering and the rest?’ For this reason the Buddha says that all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path are gathered together within the four truths.
Through the causes and conditions of the wholesome dharmas that aid the path, the Three Jewels are distinguished. Because beings do not believe in the Three Jewels, they do not obtain release from the birth and death of the six destinies.
The treatise-author asks:
Why did Subhūti ask such a coarse question, saying, ‘Is it by suffering that cessation comes, or by the knowledge of suffering that cessation comes? By origin that cessation comes, or by the knowledge of origin that cessation comes?’
The treatise-author answers:
This is not a coarse question! What he is now asking is: is it by seeing the substance of the four truths, suffering and the rest, that cessation comes? Or is it by using knowledge that cessation comes?
Because craving and the other afflictions cease, it is named nirvāṇa with remainder. If one obtained the path by the truth of suffering, all beings, and so on up to oxen, sheep, and the rest, should also obtain the path! If one obtained the path by using the knowledge of suffering, then apart from suffering there would be no knowledge to speak of; and apart from the knowledge of suffering it is not named the truth of suffering either, but is named only suffering. It is only because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together that it is born; one may not say that cessation comes only by suffering, or only by knowledge. And so on up to the truth of the path, it is likewise.
The Buddha answers: it is not by the truth of suffering that cessation comes, nor by the knowledge of suffering that cessation comes; and so on up to the truth of the path and the knowledge of the path, it is likewise. I say that the equality of these four truths is precisely cessation; cessation does not come by using the truth of suffering, nor by using, and so on up to, the truth of the path.
Why? These four dharmas, suffering and the rest, are all born from conditions and are false and unreal; because they are without self-nature they are not named real; since they are not real, how could they bring cessation?
The treatise-author asks:
The two truths are with outflows; because they are dharmas practised by ordinary people, they can be said to be false and deceptive and unreal; the truth of the path is a dharma without outflows and without clinging, and though it is born from the coming together of causes and conditions it is not false and deceptive; and again, the truth of cessation is an unconditioned dharma and does not exist from causes and conditions. How can it be said that the four dharmas are all false and deceptive?
The treatise-author answers:
At the time of first obtaining the path, one knows that the two truths are false and deceptive. At the time when one is about to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, one also knows that the truth of the path is false and deceptive, and by the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says. The truth of cessation too has no fixed dharma. As is said in the sūtra: apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; it is because of the conditioned that the unconditioned is spoken of. The cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse.
Therefore the Buddha says: it is not by using suffering, and so on up to using the path, that cessation is obtained.
Subhūti asks the Buddha: ‘What is the equality of the four truths?’
The Buddha answers: if there is no place of the eight dharmas—namely the four truths and the knowledges of the four truths—this is equality.
Again, Subhūti! The four truths are as they truly are, not deceiving, not different; they are suchness, are the nature of dharmas, are the mark of dharmas, are the abiding of dharmas, are the limit of reality; whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly; they do not use mind or mental-factor dharmas or the contemplations; it is only for the sake of not deceiving beings. Whatever abides upon all the other dharmas is inversion; because it is born from the retribution of false clinging and inversion, though it can give humans and gods joy and pleasure, in time it is all false and changes; only one dharma, namely the real mark of all dharmas, because it does not deceive, abides constantly and does not cease. In this way the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā and penetrates the real truth of dharmas.
Subhūti asks again: ‘How does the bodhisattva penetrate and obtain the real truth, pass beyond the ground of the śrāvaka and the ground of the pratyekabuddha, and enter the bodhisattva's position?’
The Buddha answers: if the bodhisattva reflects and measures in seeking dharmas, there is not a single dharma whose fixed mark can be found; he sees that all dharmas are empty—whether within the four truths or not within the four truths. As for what is not the four truths: it is space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning; all the rest is within the four truths. If he contemplates the emptiness of dharmas like this, at that time he enters the bodhisattva's position.
The treatise-author asks:
Why is it not said, ‘contemplating that emptiness too is empty, one enters the bodhisattva's position’?
The treatise-author answers:
There is no need to say it this way. Why? If one says that dharmas are empty, this emptiness then and there is empty: emptiness too is empty; if this emptiness were not empty, it would not be named the emptiness of all. Therefore, practising this emptiness, one obtains entry into the bodhisattva's position. The bodhisattva, abiding in this ground of the stage of nature, does not fall from the summit. As for ‘the ground of the stage of nature’: it is the bodhisattva's Dharma-position. It is as in the śrāvaka's dharma, where the dharma of warmth, the dharma of the summit, the dharma of acceptance, and the highest worldly dharma are named the ground of the stage of nature. These dharmas accord with the path without outflows, and therefore they are named ‘nature’; abiding within them, one can surely hope to obtain the path; the bodhisattva too is like this: abiding in this ground of the stage of nature, he can surely hope to become a Buddha. He can give rise to the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions. This bodhisattva, abiding in the ground of dhyāna, gathers the mind, discriminates, reflects on, and measures dharmas, and penetrates the four truths—that is, he knows and sees suffering, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes suffering as its object and clings to it. He knows that it is because ordinary people receive a body and cling to the causes and conditions of suffering that they undergo all kinds of sorrow and vexation; this person's body is entirely like a thief, like an enemy, is impermanent, is empty, and so on. Having obtained this knowledge, he relinquishes it then and there, does not grasp at the mark of suffering, and also does not take the truth of suffering as an object to cling to; this is because of the power of the bodhisattva's Dharma-position. And so on up to the truth of the path, it is likewise. He only dedicates it with one mind to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. He knows that these four truths stand as medicine over against disease, and he does not cling to these four truths either; he only contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is and does not make the contemplation of the four kinds of discrimination.
Subhūti asks: ‘How does one contemplate dharmas as they truly are?’
The Buddha said: ‘Contemplate emptiness. Subhūti! If the bodhisattva can contemplate all dharmas, whether great or small, as all empty, this is named contemplating as it truly is.’
He asks again: ‘By what emptiness?’
The Buddha answers: ‘By the emptiness of specific marks.’
The treatise-author asks:
Among the eighteen emptinesses, why does the Buddha speak only of the emptiness of specific marks?
The treatise-author answers:
This is the emptiness of the middle way. Inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest are the small emptinesses; ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses; the emptiness of specific marks is the emptiness that stands in the middle. Because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and therefore it can enter into the very deep emptiness. This bodhisattva, having obtained such a dharma, contemplates all dharmas as all empty, and so on up to: he does not see that a single dharma has a nature in which to abide and so obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. He contemplates dharmas as like anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi too is empty of self-nature; it is not made by the Buddha, not made by the great bodhisattvas, not made by the arhats or the pratyekabuddhas; it is constantly the mark of quiescence, without idle discourse or words.
Beings cannot know and see the mark as it truly is; therefore the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā and, by the power of skilful means, teaches the Dharma for beings. As for ‘the power of skilful means’: the bodhisattva obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva's position, and penetrates the bodhisattva's truth of the highest meaning. He contemplates this mark of the path as very deep, subtle, and wonderful, with nothing to be attained and nothing to be relinquished; even the wonderful wisdom he uses is unfindable, how much less can it be spoken by the mouth! With the mind of great compassion he deeply bears this in thought: beings, because of false matters without reality, fall into the three evil destinies and undergo great and intense suffering; if I were to proclaim this dharma directly, they would not believe it or accept it, and so would destroy the Dharma and fall into hell! I shall now accomplish all wholesome dharmas, adorn my body with the thirty-two marks, lead beings on, raise up the power of the supernormal powers of immeasurable and boundless buddhas, accomplish the Buddha path, become the lord among all the assemblies, and obtain sovereignty over all dharmas. If even when evil dharmas are praised beings will still accept them, how much more a real dharma! This bodhisattva reflects and practises according to the vow he has made, and proclaims it for beings, causing them all to obtain deliverance.
四諦品：菩薩法即佛法何以還說菩薩與佛有異，向道得果同為聖人何以仍分無礙道與解脫道，自相空中何以還立六道乃至諸佛之差別，佛既不得五道不得黑白業何以仍說地獄乃至諸佛，佛何以在說空之後纔為眾生說四聖諦，四聖諦何以不能得度而四諦平等反是涅槃，何等是四諦平等而何以又說法相常住，通達實諦何以能不墮二乘直入菩薩位，住性地不從頂墮之頂是何義，觀諸法如實相何以只答一個空字，月十四日與十五日之喻何以分周遍與不周遍，黑白黑白無漏四業何以無漏獨稱非白非黑，眾生自知性空則菩薩無所度之設難何以不是戲論，佛何以捨十八不共法而但說苦集滅道，麁問何以不麁而繫在諦智和合，四諦既從緣生虛妄何以又說不可言滅，道諦滅諦何以亦入虛誑而不壞其為道為滅，十八空中何以獨舉自相空為中道空，方便力何以是菩薩不直說空法之由
在問什麼
這一品問的是一個舊問題的最險處：既然一切法自相空，那麼世間與出世間的種種差別——六道的高下、凡聖的階位、乃至佛與菩薩的分際——憑什麼還能成立？前此諸品多從『法是空』一面立言；到了這一品，須菩提把問題反過來，從『空中何以有異』一面步步進逼，而經文所給的收攝點，正是品名所標的四聖諦。
須菩提的問法是層層剝進的。先問佛法與菩薩法何異，佛答菩薩法即是佛法，別只在一切種智之周遍與否，並以「向道、得果」之喻結之——同是聖人而有異。這一答把「差別」安在行位上，而不安在法體上。須菩提於是把問題推到法體：若一切法自相空，自相空中怎麼會有地獄乃至三藐三佛陀的差別？佛的回答沒有收回空義，反而先承認「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」，然後把差別的來源全數安在「眾生不知」四字上。須菩提再逼一步：佛自己既不得五道生死、也不得黑白等業，那麼佛口中的地獄乃至諸佛又是什麼？佛的答語轉出全品的樞紐——正因眾生實不知自性空，菩薩纔發心，佛纔說四聖諦，一切助道善法纔皆入四諦，三寶纔由此分別而立。
樞紐既立，經文立刻把四諦自身也推入空中。須菩提問是用苦聖諦得度、還是用苦智得度，佛一概否定，而說「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」。四諦是能度之法，四諦平等卻是所證之境；能度之法一一皆不可執，而其平等處便是涅槃。接著問何等是四諦平等，佛以「無苦、無苦智」乃至「無道、無道智」答之，隨即又說四諦是如、是法性、是實際、法相常住。一邊說無，一邊說常住，這是本品最容易讀翻的一處。末後歸到行門：通達實諦者不墮二乘，直入菩薩位；而所謂觀諸法如實相，佛只給一個字——空；再問何等空，答自性空。
論主的釋文循經而下，卻在三個難處另開問答。其一、在『不得五道』處問：既說大利益故不墮五道，何以又說不得？其二、在『但說苦集滅道』處問：佛習微妙法無量劫，何以獨說此四？其三、在『四法皆虛誑』處問：苦集可說虛誑，道諦無漏、滅諦無為，何以亦虛誑？三問一問比一問深，而所答皆不離『從緣生故虛妄，虛妄故不可言滅』一線。全品的骨節，就在這一線上。
逐段解明
一、須菩提問何等是佛法，佛答一切種智之得與向道得果之喻。 品首之問極短：既然這些法都是菩薩法，什麼是佛法？此問不是分辨二法，是要逼出『同一法而有二名』的道理。佛的答語有三節：先直說「菩薩法亦是佛法」，法無兩套；次說差別在於「佛以一念相應慧知一切法已」而得菩提，菩薩則是「當得是法」——一在當得，一在已得；末以向道與得果為喻，「是二人俱為聖人」，而向與得不同。讀此段先記住一事：本品所說的一切差別，從第一句起就被安置在『行位』上而不在『法體』上，後文須菩提三度追問，追的都是這一點能不能守得住。
二、須菩提難自相空中不應有差別。 第二問是正面衝撞：若一切法自相空，自相空法中云何有地獄、餓鬼乃至多陀阿伽度、阿羅呵、三藐三佛陀這許多差別？他並且把難處推到底——「如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得」。人既不可得，造業者不可得；造業者不可得，業與果報亦不可得。此難之所以有力，在於它不是反對空，而是順著空義一路推到『因果亦無』的結論。佛的答法值得細看：不否認這一推論，反而先全盤承認「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」；承認之後纔轉——「眾生不知是諸法自相空」，所以造善、惡、無動三業，所以有三惡道、人天、色無色界的分途。差別不在法上，在不知上。此一轉是本品義理的第一個關節。
三、佛既不得五道、不得黑白業，何以仍說地獄乃至諸佛。 須菩提得答而不放，連問三句：佛得菩提已，得五道生死不？得黑、白、不黑不白業不？若都不得，云何說地獄乃至諸佛？這三句是把佛自己也擺進難中——前面說眾生不知故有差別，那麼已知的佛口中為何還有差別之語？此處讀者當留意須菩提問的層次：第一問問果報之道，第二問問能感之業，第三問問言說之教。道、業、教三者一路收緊，逼到最後只剩『佛為什麼還要這樣說』一問。
四、佛答眾生實不知自性空故，乃說四聖諦而分別有三寶。 佛的答語是全品的樞紐，也是四諦所以出現在這一品的理由。答語分三節：其一、作一個反設——「若眾生知諸法自相空，菩薩摩訶薩不求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不拔眾生於三惡趣」；眾生若已自知，則發心與度生俱無所施。其二、說實情——眾生「於無所有法中，顛倒妄想分別得法」，無眾生而起眾生相，無色而起色相，乃至以顛倒妄想心造身口意業，往來五道不得脫。其三、說教之所由——菩薩行般若而得菩提，「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，為眾生說四聖諦」，而「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」，由助道善法而分別有佛寶、法寶、僧寶，不信拒逆三寶故不得離五道生死。讀到此處，本品的品題纔算落地：四聖諦不是與空義並列的另一套教法，是空義之下為不知者所施設的入路；三寶亦然。
五、非四諦非四智得度，而四諦平等即是涅槃。 須菩提隨即把四諦也拿來問：用苦聖諦得度？用苦智得度？集、滅、道與其智亦然。八問齊出。佛的回答一概否定，而給出一句正面之語：「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」。此處最易生的誤讀是以為佛否定四諦；其實所否定的是『以某一諦、某一智為能度之具』的執取，所立的是四諦之平等。諦與智皆是能度，能度不可執；平等處無能無所，故即是涅槃。凡讀經見佛全盤否定一串法目，先看他否定之後立了什麼——立處纔是他的本意。
六、何等是四諦平等——先說無八法，次說法相常住。 須菩提追問何等是平等，佛的答語有兩截，兩截語氣正相反。前截：「若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等」——以無八法為平等。後截：四聖諦「如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故」——以常住為平等。一無一常，看似相違，實則前截遮其可執之相，後截顯其不隨佛之出世而生滅。讀此段當守住「不誑不失」四字：常住之所以說，不是要另立一個不空之體，是要保住四諦之教不成誑語。
七、通達實諦故不墮二乘、直入菩薩位、住性地不從頂墮。 須菩提問菩薩如何通達實諦而不墮聲聞辟支佛地、直入菩薩位。佛答有四節，節節相因：其一、「如實見諸法」而「得無所有法」；其二、由得無所有而「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空」；其三、如是觀時「便入菩薩位中」，是為住性地中「不從頂墮」，若從頂墮則墮二乘地；其四、住性地者能生四禪、四無量心、四無色定，並於初定地中「通達四聖諦：知苦，不生緣苦心；乃至知道，不生緣道心」。此段之要在第四節：通達四諦與不緣四諦是同一件事的兩面——知其為藥而不執藥為食，纔是菩薩之通達。所謂頂墮，是行至將入而退轉之處，經文只點其名而不廣釋，論主後文纔以聲聞之煖頂忍世第一為比。
八、觀諸法如實相即觀空，何等空即自性空。 經段之末是兩問兩答，短到近乎無話：問云何觀諸法如實相，答「觀諸法空」；問何等空，答「自性空」。答語雖短，佛隨即補出所以然：菩薩用如是智慧觀一切法空，「無法性可見住是性中」而得菩提；何以故——「無性相是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，而此無性之相「非諸佛所作，非辟支佛所作」，乃至非菩薩所作。此一節把全品收在一個不作之法上：差別由不知而立，空性則非任何人所造。末句轉回慈悲——「但眾生不知不見諸法如實相」，所以菩薩以方便力為之說法。經段起於問差別，結於說法之由，首尾正相照應。
九、論主先問須菩提何故有此問，答以佛教菩薩如佛所行。 論段起手即設難：佛法與菩薩法大有差別，佛是一切智，菩薩未是一切智，須菩提何故還生疑而問？此問先把讀者可能有的輕忽點破——經首之問不是明知故問。論主之答：此中佛教菩薩「如佛所行」而行六波羅蜜乃至一切種智，既令如佛而行，自然要問「若如佛行，與佛何異」；而佛「可其意，應如是問」。答畢，論主自出判語：「色等諸法行處是同，但智慧利鈍有異。」並引佛自說之因緣——菩薩雖如實行六度而未能周遍、未能入一切門，故不名為佛；入一切種智門而以一念相應智慧得菩提、斷一切煩惱習、得諸法中自在力，爾時名佛。讀此段當記住「周遍」二字：本品所說佛與菩薩之別，不是所行之法不同，是同一法行得遍與不遍。
十、月十四日與十五日之喻。 論主為「周遍」出喻：月之十四日與十五日「雖同為月」，而十四日不能令大海水潮；菩薩雖有實智慧清淨，未具足諸佛法故不能動一切十方眾生。十五日光明盛滿則能令海水潮；菩薩成佛亦如是，放大光明能動十方國土眾生。此喻之妙在於所比者不是兩物而是一物之兩時——月未嘗是別的月，所差者只在盈滿與未滿。讀者於此可免兩失：既不因菩薩之未滿而輕其所行，亦不以未滿為已滿。
十一、向道得果之喻與金剛三昧為界。 論主續引佛自說之譬喻：「如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。」並自作落地之語：行者名為菩薩，「從初發心乃至金剛三昧」；佛已得果，「斷一切法中疑，無所不了」，故名為佛。此段把第一段經文之喻接了下來，而且給出一個明白的界標——金剛三昧以前皆名菩薩。凡讀本論見「菩薩」二字而疑其所指之寬窄，可執此一界為準。
十二、論主牒經復難，並釋三業與不動業。 論主牒須菩提第二問而復設之，語意比經文更露骨：「作業者不可得；業不可得故，果報亦不可得。佛云何說佛與菩薩有差別？」次牒佛之答——「眾生不知自性空法故，能起善惡業」，而以「如經中廣說」一語指回經文，不重出。隨後論主自立訓釋：所謂眾生，即凡夫、未入正位人，我心顛倒而以煩惱因緣起業；業有身、口、意三種，三種業復有善惡、有漏無漏二分；惡業墮三惡趣，善業生天人中；善業又分欲界繫與色無色界繫，色無色界繫之生業「名不動」，由不動業而生色無色界。此段是全品少見的一段純教相之文，讀時逐目點清即可：三業、二分、二繫、不動——四個層級，一級套一級，經文所謂「若善、若惡、若無動」到此纔算解明。
十三、自知性空則不起業，不知故受生；菩薩由是行道大饒益。 論主承上而出一句反顯之語：「若眾生自知諸法性空，即時不生著心，著心不生故不起業，乃至不生色、無色界。以實不知故生。」一句之中把全品的因果總樞說盡——業之所由起，只在一個不知；空之所以不廢因果，也只在這個不知。次接菩薩一邊：以是事故，菩薩盡受行布施等法乃至十八不共法「無所失、無所少」，乃至以如金剛三昧得菩提，大饒益眾生，眾生得是利益故「不復往來五道生死」。讀此段要看住它與第四段經文的呼應：經以佛口說眾生不知，論以行門說不知可轉，所轉之處即在菩薩之行。
十四、佛不得五道之難——如幻如夢。 論主牒經「實得是五道不」「不得」之後，另立一問：佛先說「大利益故，不墮五道」，今云何言「不得」？此問問得極細——不墮是有而不入，不得是根本無有，二語不同。論主之答亦只二句：「決定取相邪見、墮邪見」；五道生死不得，但凡夫以顛倒因緣起業，「假名有生死五道，其實如幻、如夢」。答中有兩重簡別：一、所破者是「決定取相」，不是五道之說；二、五道是假名，假名非無所有，故說如幻如夢而不說都無。讀者若把此段讀成撥無因果，正撞在論主所破的邪見上。
十五、黑業白業黑白業無漏業之釋。 論主牒經「得黑、白等四種業不」「不」之後，逐一訓四業之名，而訓法一律以果報處為據：黑業者不善業，果報是地獄等受苦惱處，眾生「以大苦惱悶極，故名為黑」；受善業果報處所謂諸天，「以其受樂隨意自在明了」，故名為白業，而此業是三界天；善不善業受果報處所謂人、阿修羅等八部，「此處亦受樂、亦受苦」，故名為白黑業；無漏業「能破不善有漏業，能拔眾生令離善惡果報中」。四目之中前三皆以受報之相立名，第四則以其所破立名——名之所由已經不同類，這正是下一段設難之所由起。
十六、無漏業何以非白非黑——二答。 論主設問：無漏業應是白，何以言非白非黑？此問問得有理，因為無漏清淨，依前三目之例當以其相立名。答有二節。其一、無漏法雖清淨無垢，「以空、無相、無作故無所分別，不得言白」；且「黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白」。其二、「復次，無漏業能滅一切，諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白。」前答就法體之無分別與相待之不成立說，後答就觀之有無說。兩答合看，可知「非白非黑」不是第三種顏色，是出於相待之外。凡遇經論以雙非立名，當先問它所非的兩邊是不是相待而立——相待若壞，雙非自明。
十七、不得四業而仍分別六道之由——無病不須藥、積塵成山。 論主牒須菩提之難並自為之廣：若無黑業云何說地獄畜生餓鬼？若無白業云何說天人？若無黑白業云何說阿修羅道？若無不白不黑業云何說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢？四問齊出而後牒佛之答。佛答仍用反設：「若一切眾生自知諸法自性空者，菩薩不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提意，亦不於六道中拔出眾生」——「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明」。次說實情，而此處論主給出了全品最詳的染污次第：不知自相空故隨心取相生著，以著故染，以染故隨五欲，隨五欲故為貪所覆，由貪因緣而有慳、虛誑、嫉妬、瞋恚、鬪諍，以瞋恚故起諸罪業而「無所識知」，故壽終隨業受生，「常往來六道中，無復窮已」。次說菩薩聞法而慈愍，願「破眾生顛倒，令解諸法空相」。末出結縛輕重之判：「若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度」；若於中起貪欲瞋恚而造重業，則是重縛難度，「譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動」。此段是本品病型最全的一段，讀時不可壓縮：取相、著、染、五欲、貪、慳虛誑嫉妬瞋恚鬪諍、罪業——每一環都是下一環的因，少讀一環即失其次第。積塵成山之喻尤須看住：山非一時而成，故亦非一時可移。
十八、佛何以但說苦集滅道——重病先除病之喻。 論主設本品第二大問：佛無量阿僧祇劫來所習微妙之法，十八不共法乃至無礙解脫諸甚深業，何以但說苦、集、滅、道？此問替讀者問出了品題之疑——四諦是共二乘之法，何以在般若會上成為佛得菩提後所說之教。答只兩句：「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。」並出喻：「如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」此答把四諦的位置定得極準：它不是究竟之法，是急要之法；不是與甚深法相違，是甚深法所以能施的前階。讀者若因此輕四諦，是不知病；若因此止於四諦，是不知寶物衣服。
十九、逐一釋苦集滅道與八聖道之正見——如酒發藥。 論主既定四諦之位，隨即逐目訓釋。苦者，「受五受眾身是一切苦本，性即是苦」，略言之即生老病等。苦集者，愛等諸煩惱；「愛是心中舊法」，故佛說「愛能生後身，故是苦因」，苦因即集。滅者，「若人欲捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷苦則滅，斷愛即是苦滅」。道者，觀五眾種種因緣、觀苦及苦集之過罪，所謂「無常、苦、空、無我」，又觀「如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊」等，於八聖道分中以正見為首而「餘七事助成發起」，能斷一切法中愛——「如以酒發藥」。四目訓畢，末句收歸經文：此人於一切世間無所復貪，得離苦火，「然後示以妙法」。此段有兩處須看住：其一、四諦是一線相貫的，苦之體、苦之因、斷因即滅、斷因之具即道，不是四個並列之目；其二、如酒發藥之喻所喻者是餘七分助成正見，不是說正見須藉外物——喻取其發散之用，不取其物。
二十、有人言之問與助道善法皆攝四諦、三寶由是而立。 經文既說「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」，論主先以「復次，此中佛自說因緣」點明此語出自佛口，次引一段旁人之問：有人言「佛何以但說苦等四法？」——與第十八段論主自設之問同旨而不同人。論主不另立新答，逕以佛語答之：「一切助道善法皆攝在四諦中。」次乃承經而下：「助道善法因緣故，分別有三寶。眾生不信三寶故，不得離六道生死。」此段之要，在於它把四諦與三寶連成一條鎖鏈——善法入四諦，四諦立三寶，三寶為出六道之所依；於是本品自「自相空」一路說下來的教門，到此纔算有了安身之處。讀者若問空義何以不壞三寶，答案就在這一節。
廿一、麁問非麁——諦與智和合故生。 論主設本品第三大問而先自為難：須菩提何以作是麁問，言「為以苦滅、以苦智滅？以集滅、集智滅？」答曰：「此非麁問！」而後點出所問之實——是見四諦之體故滅，還是用智故滅。次出二難以顯其不麁：若以苦諦得道，則「一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道」，因牛羊亦處苦中；若用苦智得道，則「離苦則無智」，且離苦智則不名為苦諦而只名為苦。末結：「苦諦、苦智和合故生」，不得言但以苦滅、但以智滅。此段教的是讀問之法：一個看似粗淺之問，若其兩端各推到底皆成過失，則此問正是要逼出中間之義。牛羊之難尤可玩味——它以最不堪之例試最堂皇之說，而說即不立。
廿二、佛答四法從緣生虛妄，故不可言滅。 論主牒佛之答：「不以苦諦滅，亦不以苦智滅，乃至道諦、道智亦如是」，而佛所立之正語是「是四諦平等即是滅」。答畢，論主自問所以然：「是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性故不名為實，不實故云何能滅？」此一節把第五段經文的否定給了理由：四諦不能為能滅之具，不是因為它不真，是因為它從緣而生故無自性；無自性者不名為實，不實之法不能作能滅。讀者當分清兩義：說四諦虛妄，是就其自性說；說四諦平等即是滅，是就其實相說。同一四諦，兩說不相礙。
廿三、道諦滅諦何以亦虛誑——栰喻、離有為無無為、燈滅。 論主設一難，難得極有份量：苦集二諦有漏，是凡夫所行之法，說它虛誑猶可；道諦是無漏法，無所著，雖從因緣和合生而不虛誑；滅諦是無為法，不從因緣有。云何言四法皆是虛誑？答亦分三節。其一、就道諦說：「初得道，知二諦是虛誑」；將入無餘涅槃時「亦知道諦虛誑，以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻」——栰非不用，是渡已不負。其二、就滅諦說：「滅諦亦無定法」，並引經為證：「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為」——無為之名待有為而立，待立者無定。其三、出喻而戒戲論：「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」末以佛語收：「不以用苦乃至用道得滅。」此段是全品義理最深之處，而論主所守的分寸極穩：說道諦虛誑而不廢修道，說滅諦無定而不撥涅槃，所破者唯在求其處所的戲論心。又論主此處所稱之「二諦」，依其所對舉之道諦、滅諦可知，即上文苦與苦集二者。
廿四、何者是四諦平等——八法處無與法相常住不滅。 論主牒須菩提之問與佛之答：「若無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智，是則平等。」八法即四諦與四智，此是前第六段經文的論家訓釋，把經中「無苦、無苦智」乃至「無道、無道智」數作八目，讀來一目了然。次牒經之後截而廣之：四諦如實、不誑、不異，如、法性、法相、法住、實際，「若有佛、無佛，法相常住」，且「不用心、心數法及諸觀，但為不誑眾生故」。論主更自出一段對顯之語：住一切餘法皆是顛倒，妄著顛倒果報而生故，雖能與人天喜樂，「久久皆虛妄變異」；「但有一法，所謂諸法實相，以不誑故，常住不滅」。此段解了第六段所留的相違之疑：所無者是可作觀境的八法，所常住者是諸法實相；一在能所之內，一在能所之外，故無與常住並說而不相妨。
廿五、通達實諦入菩薩位——在四諦不在四諦皆空。 論主牒須菩提「云何菩薩通達得實諦，過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位」之問與佛之答：若菩薩思惟籌量求諸法，「無有一法可得定相」，見一切法皆空——「若在四諦、若不在四諦」。此處論主補出經文所無的一個界說：「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡；餘在四諦。」此一補極要緊：經文只說四諦所攝與所不攝，讀者不知所不攝者為何物，論主逕舉虛空與非數緣盡二法實之，於是「皆空」之語纔有分母可數。讀論遇此等補注，當知是論主為經文補其所略，非另立新義。
廿六、空亦空何以不須別說——性地必望作佛、禪地中通達四諦而不著。 論主設問：何以不說「空亦空觀，入菩薩位」？答曰「不須是說」，而理由只一句：「若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。」——諸法空之語若徹底，則空自身已在所空之內，不待別立一觀。次釋經文『住性地不墮頂』：性地者所謂菩薩法位，如聲聞法中煖法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法名為性地，「是法隨順無漏道，故名為性，是中住必望得道；菩薩亦如是，安住是性地中，必望作佛」。以聲聞四善根比菩薩法位，是取其「必望」之義，非謂二者同體。末釋禪地中之通達：菩薩住禪地中攝心，分別思惟籌量諸法而通達四諦——知見苦「亦非緣苦生心」，知苦是凡夫受身著苦因緣故受諸憂惱，是人身「皆如賊、如怨，無常、空等」；得是已「即時捨，不取苦相，亦不緣苦諦」，以菩薩法位力故，乃至道諦亦然，「但一心迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。末句尤為切要：「知是四諦藥病相對，亦不著是四諦，但觀諸法如實相，不作四種分別觀。」藥病相對四字，是本品四諦之教的總判。
廿七、云何如實觀諸法——觀空，用自相空。 論主牒經末之二問二答：問云何如實觀諸法，佛言「觀空」，並廣之曰「若菩薩能觀一切法若大若小皆空，是名如實觀」；復問用何等空，佛答「用自相空」。此段在論中極短，幾乎只是引經，然其位置是承上啟下——上文既說不作四種分別觀，此處便須交代所代之觀為何；答語落在自相空，而自相空之所以獨舉，是下一段之事。讀論見此等純牒經之短段，不可略過：它是論主為下文設的問頭。
廿八、十八空中何以但說自相空——中道空。 論主設本品最末一問：十八空中佛何以但說自相空？答曰「是中道空」，而以三層為次：「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」次說其所以居中之用：「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中」——自相有理可破，故行人有下手處而心不沈沒；既已破自相，則能轉入畢竟、無所得之甚深空。此是全品行門之樞：空有淺深，而入處在中。次接經文而廣其果：菩薩得如是法，觀一切法皆空，「乃至不見一法有性可住得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」；觀諸法如菩提，而菩提「亦自性空」，「非佛所作，非大菩薩所作，非阿羅漢、辟支佛所作，常寂滅相，無戲論語言」。讀者於此可回看第八段之經文——彼說無性相非諸佛所作，此說菩提亦自性空，經論兩處正是一義。
廿九、方便力者——大悲心深念與三十二相之引導。 全品結在一個『不直說』上。論主牒經之末語：眾生不能知見如實相，故菩薩行般若「以方便力，為眾生說法」；隨即訓「方便力」三字：菩薩得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦，「觀是道相甚深微妙，無得無捨；用妙智慧不可得，何況可得口說」。次出菩薩之大悲心深念——若我直說是法，眾生「則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄」；故當先成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相以引導眾生，起諸佛神通力，得成佛道而於諸法得自在；末更以一句反顯其急：「若讚惡法，眾生猶尚當受，何況實法！」結語是「是菩薩如所願思惟行，為眾生說，使皆度脫」。此段與第四段經文首尾相接：彼說眾生不知故佛說四諦，此說眾生不信故菩薩不直說空——一品之中兩度為「不知」而設教，前者設四諦，後者設相好與方便。全品之空義，至此纔算落到人身上。
不要讀錯
不要把「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」讀成撥無因果。佛說此語之後立刻接「眾生不知是諸法自相空」，而以三業三界的果報次第廣說之；論主更明判「決定取相邪見、墮邪見」，並說五道是「假名有」而「如幻、如夢」。如幻如夢者非無所有，是有而無實。若因空義而謂業報都無，正是論主此處所斥的決定取相之邪見——所取者換了一個相而已。
不要把佛否定四諦四智得度，讀成佛廢四諦。經文否定的是『以某一諦、某一智為能度』，所立的是「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」；論主釋其所以然，是四法「皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性」。而同一經文之中，佛正是在得菩提之後「為眾生說四聖諦」，並說「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」、由是而分別有三寶。一面說四諦是所施設之教，一面說四諦不可執為能度之具，兩說並存纔是經意；取其一而廢其一，則三寶之立與涅槃之證必失其一。
不要把「無苦、無苦智」與「法相常住」讀成前後相違。論主已把前截訓作「無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智」，是就可作觀境的八個法目說無；後截所常住者是「諸法實相」，論主並以「住一切餘法皆顛倒」「久久皆虛妄變異」與之對顯，而說「但有一法，所謂諸法實相，以不誑故，常住不滅」。所無者在能所之內，所常住者非心心數法及諸觀之所行——故無與常住不在同一層上，不成相違。
不要把「道諦虛誑」讀成修道無用。論主所舉之時節極明白：「初得道，知二諦是虛誑」，而知道諦虛誑是在「將入無餘涅槃」之時，且其法是「以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻」。栰之為物，未渡則須，已渡則捨；捨在渡後，不在渡前。若未渡而先議栰之虛誑，則兩岸俱失。滅諦一邊亦然——「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為」所破者是求無為之處所的戲論，不是撥無涅槃，故論主緊接「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所」。
不要把『無漏業非白非黑』讀成另立第三種業。論主二答所據皆是相待之壞：「黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白」，又「諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白」。可見雙非是出於相待之外，不是在黑白之外另添一色。前三業以受報之相立名，無漏業則以「能破不善有漏業」立名——立名之據既已不同類，自不可以前三目之例責其當有色相。
不要把自相空讀成十八空中最高之空。論主明白列其三層：「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」其所以獨舉，是因為它居中而有下手處——「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中」。若把中空認作極則而止步，則畢竟空、無所得空之門不開；若嫌其不高而躐等直趣甚深，則無理可破而心沈沒。論主所指的是一條路上的中段，不是一座高峰。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把「眾生不知」四字當作自己的所在。全品兩度以反設立教：若眾生自知諸法自相空，則菩薩不發心、不拔眾生；若一切眾生自知諸法自性空，則「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明」。這兩句反設不是修辭，是行人自審的鏡子——今日我仍在被度之數中，正因為我仍不自知。凡讀空義而覺輕鬆者，可持此二句一照：若真自知，何以貪瞋依舊現行？知之未到，藥即不可停。
第二件受用，是染污次第可作逐環自檢。論主所列之次第極細：不知自相空故隨心取相，取相故生著，著故染，染故隨五欲，隨五欲故為貪所覆，由貪而有慳、虛誑、嫉妬、瞋恚、鬪諍，由瞋恚而起諸罪業。一日之中回看，可逐環自問：我今在哪一環？若尚在取相，尚易解；若已到鬪諍，則是論主所說的重縛。積微塵成山之喻正為此立——山既非一時而成，移之亦不可求速；但每日不再添一塵，山即不長。
第三件受用，是四諦作藥病相對而不作所執。論主末段判語「知是四諦藥病相對，亦不著是四諦」十四字，是本品給行人的正行。上句令人老實服藥——苦當知、集當斷、滅當證、道當修，次第不可躐；下句令人服而不執——不以所服之藥為身、不以知苦之智自高。經文所謂「知苦，不生緣苦心」，論主所謂「得是已，即時捨，不取苦相」，說的都是同一件事：用得上而不黏住。
第四件受用，是遇甚深法而不能受時，當看菩薩之方便。論主釋方便力，是說菩薩雖通達第一義諦而不直說，因為「若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄」；故先成就善法、莊嚴身相以引導眾生。此一段對兩種人皆有用：對自覺根鈍者，可知佛菩薩所施之種種前方便並非低看自己，是對症；對欲為他人說法者，可知深法不擇人而說，其害不在說者之慢而在聞者之毀——「若讚惡法，眾生猶尚當受，何況實法」，正是提醒說者先看聞者之器。
第五件受用，是以中空為下手處。自相空之所以是中空，在於「自相有理破故而心不沒」——它給人一個可破之相，故行得起來；破了之後又能入甚深空，故不落斷處。行人於日用中觀一法之自相而見其無自性，是實實在在做得來的功課；既做得來，心不沈沒，纔談得上畢竟空、無所得空。若一上手即取最深之空，往往落在口說而身不行的地位，正是論主所說的心沒。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是一段經文與一段論釋。經①自須菩提問何等是佛法起，佛答菩薩法亦是佛法而別在一切種智之得，出向道得果之喻、無礙道中行與解脫道中無闇蔽之判；次難自相空中不應有六道乃至三藐三佛陀之差別，佛承其難而歸於眾生不知自相空故作善惡無動三業；次問佛得菩提已得五道不、得黑白等業不、若不得云何仍說地獄乃至諸佛，佛答以眾生實不知自性空故不得脫，而菩薩得菩提已為眾生說四聖諦、一切助道善法皆入四諦、由是分別有三寶；次問用四諦四智得度否，佛答非諦非智得度而四諦平等即是涅槃；次問何等是四諦平等，佛答無苦無苦智乃至無道無道智，復說四諦如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛無佛法相常住；次問云何通達實諦而不墮二乘直入菩薩位，佛答如實見諸法、得無所有法、見四諦所攝所不攝法皆空，住性地不從頂墮，能生四禪四無量心四無色定而於定地中通達四諦不生緣著心；末問云何觀諸法如實相，佛答觀諸法空、答自性空，並說無性相是菩提、非諸佛乃至非菩薩所作，結以眾生不知不見故菩薩以方便力為之說法。論①循經而釋，而於三處另設問答：先問須菩提何故有佛法菩薩法之疑，答以佛教菩薩如佛所行，並出周遍利鈍之判、月十四日十五日之喻、向道得果之喻與金剛三昧之界；次牒自相空之難而釋三業二分二繫與不動業，明自知性空則不起業；次問佛先說不墮五道今何言不得，答以決定取相為邪見而五道假名如幻如夢；次訓黑白黑白無漏四業，問無漏何以非白非黑而以無相待、無觀二義答之；次牒不得四業而仍分別六道之難，廣說取相生著乃至鬪諍罪業之次第、結縛輕重與積微塵成山之喻；次問佛何以但說苦集滅道，答以眾生所畏無過於苦而出重病先除病之喻，並逐目訓四諦與八聖道正見、如以酒發藥；次引有人言之問而以佛語答之，明助道善法攝在四諦、三寶由是而立；次問須菩提之麁問，答以此非麁問而出牛羊得道之難與諦智和合之義；次釋四法從緣生虛妄故不可言滅，而以道諦滅諦亦虛誑之難為深——答以栰喻、離有為無無為、苦滅如燈滅不應戲論求其處所；次釋八法處無即是平等與諸法實相常住不滅；次釋在四諦不在四諦皆空而補出虛空、非數緣盡為非四諦之法；次問何以不說空亦空觀，答以不須是說，並以聲聞煖頂忍世第一比性地之必望得道、釋禪地中通達四諦而不著四諦、判四諦為藥病相對；次問十八空中何以但說自相空，答以是中道空而分小空、中空、甚深空三層；末訓方便力，出菩薩大悲心深念與莊嚴三十二相引導眾生之語，結以如所願思惟行、為眾生說、使皆度脫。
本品之品題，諸本兩造並存，如實並錄。底本作「四諦品」而宮本作「差別品」，明本於品次之下更有夾註曰「有本作差別品」。上溯所釋之母經《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》，其品目正作「差別品第八十四」，而經題之下亦繫一夾註曰「丹本作四諦品」——是母經一邊以差別為正名而以四諦為異名，本論底本一邊以四諦為正名而以差別為異名，兩名互為表裏，非一有一無。二名各有所取：作「四諦品」者取其教門之所歸，本品經段正以四聖諦收攝一切助道善法；作「差別品」者取其問端之所起，本品自始至終所問皆是自相空中云何有差別。並錄不判。
古德之釋，本品可誌者二家，而一家闕釋。吉藏《大品經義疏》科解此品，其品界自「差別品第八十四」起，至「七譬品第八十五」止，用名與母經品目一致而不作「四諦品」。其總判此品之位曰：「此下是第三明方便得果。四品為二：第一三品明得菩提果，如化一品明得涅槃果。」又科本品之內為四，曰：「初中為四：第一明佛菩薩所行雖同而有漏不滿異之，第二明空雖不二迷悟不二，第三佛雖不得六道為眾生故證得菩提廣說四諦，第四明稟教得悟更能傳化也。」——以四科判本品，其第三科正與上文所說『四諦之教由眾生不知而設』一義相發。其釋自相空中之差別云：「俗有差別，道門無差別也」；其釋說諦之次第云：「說諦之中初說四諦，次說一乘實諦，亦初說世諦，後說第一義諦」——以二諦之次第配本品之四諦與實諦，是吉藏自家之判，與本論以「藥病相對」判四諦者所取之角度不同，兩存之。其釋佛答諦智之問云：「佛答：泯其境智二見令悟不二，即緣觀俱寂方得道也」——以境智二見之泯釋『不以苦諦滅、不以苦智滅』，與本論「苦諦、苦智和合故生」一語相發而措辭有別。其釋自相空云：「論中此是中道空，內外等三空為淺空，畢竟空為深空」——自云所本在論，而以「淺空」易本論之「小空」、以「內外等三空」易本論之「內、外空等」，是疏家撮述之辭，非逐字照錄，並誌之。
均正《大乘四論玄義》三處直引本品，皆繫於「差別品」名下。其一云：「差別品云：得無所有已，見一切法空，四諦所攝法皆空。若見觀是時，便入菩薩位中。」——此節引本品經文「得無所有法已，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。若如是觀，是時，便入菩薩位中」一段，而略其「四聖諦所不攝」一句，是節引非逐字。其二云：「差別品云：菩薩斷無礙道行，佛於解脫道行。」其三云：「差別品云：菩薩無礙道中行，諸佛解脫中行。」——二處同引本品「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛」一段，而後引之用字較近本論原文，前引則加一「斷」字，是均正自身複述之語。均正引此二句，皆用以論金剛心與佛地之斷惑分際，其所論之義屬彼書自家之課題，非本品所自有，誌其引而不隨其判。
慧影《大智度論疏》於本品闕釋。其現存之本止於釋品六十九〈大方便品〉而不完，遠在本品之前，故本品無疏可考——此是闕，非其無說，據實標之，不以他處之文充之。又本論所釋之「四諦品」一名，他書亦有同名而非本品者，如《中論》之〈觀四諦品〉、《大般涅槃經》所說四諦之文，吉藏與均正書中皆有引及；彼此對告之人與所論之理俱不同，不相混。
The Four Truths: Why, If the Bodhisattva's Dharmas Are the Dharmas of the Buddha, a Difference between the Bodhisattva and the Buddha Is Still Spoken Of; Why, Though Heading toward the Path and Obtaining the Fruit Are Alike Sages, the Path without Obstruction and the Path of Liberation Are Still Divided; Why within the Emptiness of Specific Marks the Distinctions from the Six Destinies up to the Buddhas Are Still Set Up; Why, Since the Buddha Obtains Neither the Five Destinies nor Black and White Deeds, He Still Speaks of the Hells up to the Buddhas; Why the Buddha Teaches the Four Noble Truths for Beings Only after Speaking of Emptiness; Why One Cannot Be Delivered by the Four Noble Truths and yet the Equality of the Four Truths Is Instead Nirvāṇa; What the Equality of the Four Truths Is, and Why It Is Also Said That the Marks of Dharmas Abide Constantly; Why Penetrating the Real Truth Keeps One from Falling into the Two Vehicles and Leads Directly into the Bodhisattva's Position; What the Summit Means in Abiding in the Ground of the Stage of Nature and Not Falling from the Summit; Why Contemplating the Mark of Dharmas as It Truly Is Is Answered with the Single Word Emptiness; Why the Simile of the Moon of the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Day Divides the All-Pervading from the Not All-Pervading; Why among the Four Deeds—Black, White, Black-and-White, and without Outflows—Those without Outflows Alone Are Called Neither White nor Black; Why the Objection That If Beings Knew for Themselves That Dharmas Are Empty of Nature the Bodhisattva Would Have No One to Deliver Is Not Idle Discourse; Why the Buddha Sets Aside the Eighteen Unshared Dharmas and Speaks Only of Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and Path; Why the Coarse Question Is Not Coarse but Hangs on the Coming Together of Truth and Knowledge; Why, Since the Four Truths Are Born from Conditions and Are False, It Is Further Said That They Cannot Be Said to Bring Cessation; Why the Truth of the Path and the Truth of Cessation Too Enter the False and Deceptive without Destroying Their Being Path and Cessation; Why among the Eighteen Emptinesses the Emptiness of Specific Marks Alone Is Singled Out as the Emptiness of the Middle Way; Why the Power of Skilful Means Is the Reason the Bodhisattva Does Not State the Dharma of Emptiness Directly
What Is Being Asked
What this chapter asks about is the most perilous point of an old question: since all dharmas are empty of specific marks, then the various distinctions of the worldly and the world-transcending—the high and low of the six destinies, the grades of ordinary people and sages, and even the dividing line between the Buddha and the bodhisattva—on what basis can they still stand? The chapters before this mostly set up their words from the side of ‘dharmas are empty’; when it comes to this chapter, Subhūti turns the question round and presses step by step from the side of ‘how is there difference within emptiness’, and the point at which the sūtra text gathers it in is precisely the four noble truths named in the chapter's title.
Subhūti's way of asking peels inward layer by layer. First he asks how the dharmas of the Buddha differ from the dharmas of the bodhisattva; the Buddha answers that the bodhisattva's dharmas are the dharmas of the Buddha, and that the difference lies only in whether the omniscience of all kinds is all-pervading or not, and he concludes it with the simile of 「向道、得果」 tr. "heading toward the path, obtaining the fruit"—both alike sages, and yet different. This answer places 「差別」 tr. "difference" on the stage of practice and not on the substance of dharmas. Subhūti therefore pushes the question onto the substance of dharmas: if all dharmas are empty of specific marks, how within the emptiness of specific marks can there be the distinctions from the hells up to the samyaksaṃbuddha? The Buddha's reply does not withdraw the meaning of emptiness; on the contrary, he first concedes 「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」 tr. "within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution", and then places the source of difference wholly on the four Chinese characters 「眾生不知」 tr. "beings do not know". Subhūti presses one step further: since the Buddha himself obtains neither the birth and death of the five destinies nor black, white, and the other deeds, then what are the hells up to the buddhas in the Buddha's mouth? The Buddha's answer turns out the pivot of the whole chapter—precisely because beings truly do not know the emptiness of self-nature, the bodhisattva arouses the mind, the Buddha teaches the four noble truths, all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter the four truths, and the Three Jewels are thereby distinguished and set up.
Once the pivot is set up, the sūtra text at once pushes the four truths themselves into emptiness as well. Subhūti asks whether it is by the noble truth of suffering that one is delivered, or by the knowledge of suffering; the Buddha denies all of it, and says 「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa". The four truths are the dharmas that can deliver, while the equality of the four truths is the realm that is realised; each and every dharma that can deliver may not be grasped, and the place of their equality is precisely nirvāṇa. Next he asks what the equality of the four truths is, and the Buddha answers it with 「無苦、無苦智」 tr. "no suffering, no knowledge of suffering" and so on up to 「無道、無道智」 tr. "no path, no knowledge of the path", and immediately says further that the four truths are suchness, are the nature of dharmas, are the limit of reality, and that the marks of dharmas abide constantly. On one side it speaks of absence, on the other side of abiding constantly: this is the place in this chapter most easily read upside down. At the end it returns to the gate of practice: one who penetrates the real truth does not fall into the two vehicles and enters directly into the bodhisattva's position; and as for what is called contemplating the mark of dharmas as it truly is, the Buddha gives only one word—emptiness; asked again what emptiness, he answers the emptiness of self-nature.
The treatise-author's explanation follows the sūtra downward, yet at three hard points it opens separate questions and answers. First, at ‘does not obtain the five destinies’ it asks: since it was said that because of the great benefit he does not fall into the five destinies, why is it further said that he does not obtain them? Second, at ‘speaks only of suffering, origin, cessation, and path’ it asks: the Buddha has trained in subtle and wonderful dharmas for immeasurable kalpas, so why does he speak of these four alone? Third, at ‘the four dharmas are all false and deceptive’ it asks: suffering and origin can be called false and deceptive, but the truth of the path is without outflows and the truth of cessation is unconditioned, so why are these too false and deceptive? The three questions go deeper one after another, and what is answered never departs from the one line ‘because they are born from conditions they are false; because they are false one cannot speak of cessation by them’. The joints of the whole chapter lie on this one line.
Passage by Passage
1. Subhūti asks what the dharmas of the Buddha are; the Buddha answers with the obtaining of the omniscience of all kinds and with the simile of heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit. The question at the head of the chapter is extremely short: since these dharmas are all the bodhisattva's dharmas, what are the dharmas of the Buddha? This question is not meant to tell two dharmas apart; it is meant to press out the principle of ‘one and the same dharma having two names’. The Buddha's answer has three parts: first he says directly 「菩薩法亦是佛法」 tr. "the bodhisattva's dharmas are also the dharmas of the Buddha"—there are not two sets of dharmas; next he says that the difference lies in 「佛以一念相應慧知一切法已」 tr. "the Buddha, having known all dharmas by the wisdom associated with a single thought" and so obtaining awakening, while the bodhisattva is one who 「當得是法」 tr. "is to obtain this dharma"—the one lies in what is yet to be obtained, the other in what has already been obtained; finally he takes heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit as a simile, 「是二人俱為聖人」 tr. "these two people are both sages", and yet heading toward and obtaining are not the same. In reading this passage, first remember one thing: every difference spoken of in this chapter is placed, from the first sentence on, on the ‘stage of practice’ and not on the ‘substance of dharmas’; when Subhūti pursues it three times in what follows, what he pursues is whether this point can be held.
2. Subhūti objects that within the emptiness of specific marks there should be no difference. The second question is a head-on collision: if all dharmas are empty of specific marks, how within dharmas empty of specific marks can there be so many distinctions—the hells, the hungry ghosts, and so on up to the tathāgata, the arhat, the samyaksaṃbuddha? And he pushes the difficulty to the very bottom—「如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得」 tr. "since these persons are unfindable, the causes and conditions of deeds are also unfindable, and retribution is also unfindable". Since the person is unfindable, the maker of deeds is unfindable; since the maker of deeds is unfindable, deeds and retribution are unfindable too. The reason this objection has force is that it does not oppose emptiness; rather it follows the meaning of emptiness all the way to the conclusion ‘cause and effect too do not exist’. The Buddha's way of answering deserves a close look: he does not deny this inference, but on the contrary first concedes the whole of it, 「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」 tr. "within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution"; only after conceding does he turn—「眾生不知是諸法自相空」 tr. "beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks", and therefore they make the three deeds, wholesome, evil, and unmoving, and therefore there are the divided roads of the three evil destinies, of humans and gods, and of the form and formless realms. The difference is not in the dharmas; it is in the not knowing. This one turn is the first joint of this chapter's meaning.
3. Since the Buddha obtains neither the five destinies nor black and white deeds, why does he still speak of the hells up to the buddhas? Subhūti, having got an answer, does not let go, and asks three sentences in a row: after the Buddha has obtained awakening, does he obtain the birth and death of the five destinies? Does he obtain deeds black, white, and neither black nor white? If he obtains none of them, how does he speak of the hells up to the buddhas? These three sentences put the Buddha himself into the difficulty—earlier it was said that because beings do not know there is difference, so why are there still words of difference in the mouth of the Buddha, who already knows? Here the reader should note the layers of Subhūti's questions: the first question asks about the destinies of retribution, the second asks about the deeds that can bring them about, the third asks about the teaching in words. Destiny, deed, teaching—the three tighten all the way, pressing down at the end to only one question: ‘why does the Buddha still speak in this way’.
4. The Buddha answers that because beings truly do not know the emptiness of self-nature, he then teaches the four noble truths, and the Three Jewels are distinguished. The Buddha's answer is the pivot of the whole chapter, and also the reason the four truths appear in this chapter. The answer falls into three parts. First, it makes a counter-supposition—「若眾生知諸法自相空，菩薩摩訶薩不求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不拔眾生於三惡趣」 tr. "if beings knew that dharmas are empty of specific marks, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva would not seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor would he pull beings out from the three evil courses"; if beings already knew for themselves, then arousing the mind and delivering beings would both have nowhere to be applied. Second, it states the actual case—beings 「於無所有法中，顛倒妄想分別得法」 tr. "within dharmas without anything existent obtain dharmas by inverted false thinking and discrimination": where there are no beings they raise up the mark of beings, where there is no form they raise up the mark of form, and so on up to making bodily, verbal, and mental deeds with an inverted and falsely thinking mind, going and coming in the five destinies without obtaining liberation. Third, it states whence the teaching comes—the bodhisattva practises prajñā and obtains awakening; 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，為眾生說四聖諦」 tr. "having obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he teaches the four noble truths for beings", and 「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」 tr. "all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths"; through the wholesome dharmas that aid the path the Buddha Jewel, the Dharma Jewel, and the Saṅgha Jewel are distinguished, and because they do not believe in the Three Jewels and reject them, they do not obtain release from the birth and death of the five destinies. Reading to this point, the chapter's title can at last be said to have landed: the four noble truths are not another set of teachings placed alongside the meaning of emptiness; they are an entry-way set up, beneath the meaning of emptiness, for those who do not know; the Three Jewels too are like this.
5. One is delivered neither by the four truths nor by the four knowledges, and the equality of the four truths is precisely nirvāṇa. Subhūti at once takes up the four truths as well and asks: is it by the noble truth of suffering that one is delivered? Is it by the knowledge of suffering that one is delivered? Origin, cessation, and path with their knowledges likewise. Eight questions go out together. The Buddha's reply denies all of them, yet gives one positive sentence: 「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa". The misreading most easily born here is to think that the Buddha denies the four truths; in fact what is denied is the grasping that takes ‘some one truth or some one knowledge as the instrument that can deliver’, and what is set up is the equality of the four truths. Truth and knowledge are both what can deliver, and what can deliver may not be grasped; in the place of equality there is neither subject nor object, and therefore it is precisely nirvāṇa. Whenever, reading the sūtras, one sees the Buddha deny a whole string of dharma-items, first look at what he sets up after denying—the place where he sets something up is his real intent.
6. What the equality of the four truths is—first it speaks of the absence of the eight dharmas, next of the marks of dharmas abiding constantly. Subhūti pursues what equality is, and the Buddha's answer has two halves whose tones are exactly opposite. The first half: 「若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等」 tr. "if there is no suffering and no knowledge of suffering, no origin and no knowledge of origin, no cessation and no knowledge of cessation, no path and no knowledge of the path, this is named the equality of the four noble truths"—taking the absence of the eight dharmas as equality. The latter half: the four noble truths are 「如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故」 tr. "suchness, not-different, the mark of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the limit of reality; whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly, because they do not deceive and are not lost"—taking constant abiding as equality. One absence and one constancy seem to contradict each other, but in fact the first half negates their graspable marks, and the latter half discloses that they do not arise and cease with the Buddha's appearing in the world. In reading this passage hold to the four Chinese characters 「不誑不失」 tr. "do not deceive and are not lost": the reason constant abiding is spoken of is not to set up separately a substance that is not empty; it is to keep the teaching of the four truths from becoming deceiving words.
7. Because he penetrates the real truth he does not fall into the two vehicles, enters directly into the bodhisattva's position, and abides in the ground of the stage of nature without falling from the summit. Subhūti asks how the bodhisattva penetrates the real truth so as not to fall into the ground of the śrāvaka or of the pratyekabuddha, and to enter directly into the bodhisattva's position. The Buddha's answer has four parts, each part following from the one before: first, he 「如實見諸法」 tr. "sees dharmas as they truly are" and 「得無所有法」 tr. "obtains the dharma without anything existent"; second, from obtaining what is without anything existent he 「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空」 tr. "sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty"; third, when contemplating like this 「便入菩薩位中」 tr. "he then enters into the bodhisattva's position", and this is abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, 「不從頂墮」 tr. "not falling from the summit"; if one falls from the summit, one falls into the ground of the two vehicles; fourth, one who abides in the ground of the stage of nature can give rise to the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions, and on the first ground of concentration 「通達四聖諦：知苦，不生緣苦心；乃至知道，不生緣道心」 tr. "penetrates the four noble truths: he knows suffering, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes suffering as its object; and so on up to: he knows the path, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes the path as its object". The key of this passage lies in the fourth part: penetrating the four truths and not taking the four truths as object are two faces of one and the same matter—knowing it to be medicine and yet not taking the medicine for food: only this is the bodhisattva's penetration. What is called the summit-fall is the place where, having gone as far as being about to enter, one retreats and turns back; the sūtra text only names it and does not explain it at length, and only later does the treatise-author compare it with the śrāvaka's warmth, summit, acceptance, and highest worldly dharma.
8. Contemplating the mark of dharmas as it truly is, is contemplating emptiness; and which emptiness is the emptiness of self-nature. At the end of the sūtra section there are two questions and two answers, so short as to be almost wordless: asked how one contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is, he answers 「觀諸法空」 tr. "contemplate that dharmas are empty"; asked what emptiness, he answers 「自性空」 tr. "the emptiness of self-nature". Though the answers are short, the Buddha at once supplies the reason: the bodhisattva with such wisdom contemplates all dharmas as empty, 「無法性可見住是性中」 tr. "there is no nature of dharmas to be seen, and yet he abides within this nature", and obtains awakening; why—because 「無性相是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the mark of being without nature is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and this mark of being without nature is 「非諸佛所作，非辟支佛所作」 tr. "not made by the buddhas, not made by the pratyekabuddhas", and so on up to not made by the bodhisattvas. This section gathers the whole chapter into a dharma that is not made: difference is set up through not knowing, while the nature of emptiness is made by no one at all. The last sentence turns back to compassion—「但眾生不知不見諸法如實相」 tr. "it is only that beings do not know and do not see the mark of dharmas as it truly is", and therefore the bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, teaches the Dharma for them. The sūtra section begins with asking about difference and ends with the reason for teaching the Dharma; head and tail exactly answer each other.
9. The treatise-author first asks why Subhūti had this question, and answers that the Buddha teaches the bodhisattva to practise as the Buddha practises. At the very start of the treatise section an objection is set up: the dharmas of the Buddha and the dharmas of the bodhisattva differ greatly—the Buddha is omniscience, the bodhisattva is not yet omniscience—so why did Subhūti still give rise to doubt and ask? This question first exposes a carelessness the reader may have—the question at the head of the sūtra is not a question asked about what is already known. The treatise-author's answer: herein the Buddha teaches the bodhisattva to practise the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds 「如佛所行」 tr. "as the Buddha practises"; since he has him practise as the Buddha does, naturally one must ask 「若如佛行，與佛何異」 tr. "if he practises as the Buddha does, how does he differ from the Buddha"; and the Buddha 「可其意，應如是問」 tr. "assents to his intent: he ought to ask in this way". The answer finished, the treatise-author gives his own verdict: 「色等諸法行處是同，但智慧利鈍有異。」 tr. "The places where form and the other dharmas are practised are the same; only the sharpness or dullness of wisdom differs." And he cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states—although the bodhisattva practises the six perfections as they truly are, he has not yet been able to be all-pervading, not yet able to enter every gate, and therefore he is not named Buddha; when he enters the gate of the omniscience of all kinds, obtains awakening by the wisdom associated with a single thought, severs all the afflictions and their habitual residues, and obtains the power of mastery within all dharmas, only then is he named Buddha. In reading this passage remember the two Chinese characters 「周遍」 tr. "all-pervading": the difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva spoken of in this chapter is not that the dharmas practised differ; it is whether one and the same dharma is practised all-pervadingly or not.
10. The simile of the moon of the fourteenth and the fifteenth day. The treatise-author gives a simile for 「周遍」 tr. "all-pervading": the moon of the fourteenth day and that of the fifteenth day, 「雖同為月」 tr. "though both are equally the moon", yet the fourteenth cannot make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide; though the bodhisattva has true and pure wisdom, because he has not yet made complete the dharmas of the buddhas he cannot shake all the beings of the ten directions. On the fifteenth the brightness is full, and it can make the waters of the ocean rise in tide; the bodhisattva who becomes a Buddha is also like this: he emits great light and can shake the beings of the lands of the ten directions. The wonder of this simile is that what is compared is not two things but two times of one thing—the moon was never some other moon; what differs is only whether it is full or not yet full. Here the reader can avoid two losses: neither belittling what the bodhisattva practises because he is not yet full, nor taking the not yet full for the already full.
11. The simile of heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, with the vajra samādhi as the boundary. The treatise-author goes on to cite the simile the Buddha himself states: 「如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。」 tr. "As heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, though both are equally sages, still differ." And he himself supplies the words that bring it to ground: the one who is practising is named a bodhisattva, 「從初發心乃至金剛三昧」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind up to the vajra samādhi"; the Buddha has already obtained the fruit, 「斷一切法中疑，無所不了」 tr. "has severed the doubts within all dharmas, there being nothing he has not thoroughly understood", and therefore he is named Buddha. This passage takes up the simile of the first passage of the sūtra text, and moreover gives a clear boundary-mark—everything before the vajra samādhi is named bodhisattva. Whenever, reading this treatise, one sees the two Chinese characters 「菩薩」 tr. "bodhisattva" and doubts how wide or narrow their reference is, one may hold to this one boundary as the standard.
12. The treatise-author cites the sūtra and raises the objection again, and explains the three deeds and unmoving deeds. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's second question and sets it up again, its intent more naked than in the sūtra text: 「作業者不可得；業不可得故，果報亦不可得。佛云何說佛與菩薩有差別？」 tr. "The one who makes deeds is unfindable; because deeds are unfindable, retribution too is unfindable. Why does the Buddha say that there is a difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva?" Next he cites the Buddha's answer—「眾生不知自性空法故，能起善惡業」 tr. "because beings do not know the dharma of the emptiness of self-nature, they can raise up wholesome and evil deeds", and with the one phrase 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as spoken at length in the sūtra" he points back to the sūtra text without repeating it. Thereupon the treatise-author sets up his own glosses: what are called beings are ordinary people, those who have not yet entered the right position, whose mind of self is inverted and who raise up deeds through the causes and conditions of the afflictions; deeds are of three kinds, of body, speech, and mind, and the three kinds of deeds are again divided in two—wholesome and evil, with outflows and without outflows; evil deeds fall into the three evil courses, wholesome deeds are born among gods and humans; wholesome deeds are further divided into those bound to the desire realm and those bound to the form and formless realms, and the deeds of birth bound to the form and formless realms are 「名不動」 tr. "named unmoving"; through unmoving deeds one is born in the form and formless realms. This passage is one of the rare passages of pure doctrinal classification in the whole chapter; in reading it, simply mark each item clearly: three deeds, two divisions, two bindings, unmoving—four levels, one level set inside the next; only here is what the sūtra text calls 「若善、若惡、若無動」 tr. "whether wholesome, whether evil, whether unmoving" fully explained.
13. If they knew for themselves that dharmas are empty of nature they would not raise up deeds, and because they do not know they receive birth; the bodhisattva therefore practises the path and greatly enriches them. The treatise-author, continuing from the above, gives a sentence that discloses by contrast: 「若眾生自知諸法性空，即時不生著心，著心不生故不起業，乃至不生色、無色界。以實不知故生。」 tr. "If beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, then and there they would not give rise to a clinging mind; because the clinging mind does not arise they would not raise up deeds, and so on up to: they would not be born in the form realm or the formless realm. It is because they truly do not know that they are born." Within one sentence the whole pivot of cause and effect in this chapter is said to the end—that from which deeds arise lies only in one not knowing; that by which emptiness does not discard cause and effect also lies only in this not knowing. Next it joins the bodhisattva's side: because of this matter, the bodhisattva receives and practises in full giving and the other dharmas up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, 「無所失、無所少」 tr. "with nothing omitted and nothing lacking", and so on up to obtaining awakening by the like-vajra samādhi and greatly enriching beings; because beings obtain this benefit they 「不復往來五道生死」 tr. "no longer go and come within the birth and death of the five destinies". In reading this passage, watch its echo of the fourth passage of the sūtra text: the sūtra, from the Buddha's mouth, says that beings do not know; the treatise, from the gate of practice, says that not knowing can be turned; and the place where it is turned lies precisely in the bodhisattva's practice.
14. The objection that the Buddha does not obtain the five destinies—like an illusion, like a dream. After citing the sūtra's 「實得是五道不」 tr. "does he really obtain these five destinies?" and 「不得」 tr. "he does not obtain them", the treatise-author sets up a separate question: the Buddha said earlier 「大利益故，不墮五道」 tr. "because of the great benefit he does not fall into the five destinies"; why does he now say 「不得」 tr. "does not obtain them"? This question is asked very finely—not falling means that they exist but he does not enter them; not obtaining means that fundamentally there is nothing; the two phrases differ. The treatise-author's answer is also only two sentences: 「決定取相邪見、墮邪見」 tr. "to grasp at marks as fixed is a wrong view, and one falls into wrong views"; the birth and death of the five destinies are unfindable, but ordinary people raise up deeds through the causes and conditions of inversion, and 「假名有生死五道，其實如幻、如夢」 tr. "by provisional names there are birth and death and the five destinies; in reality they are like an illusion, like a dream". Within the answer there are two layers of discernment: first, what is refuted is 「決定取相」 tr. "grasping at marks as fixed", not the teaching of the five destinies; second, the five destinies are provisional names, and a provisional name is not without anything existent, so it says like an illusion, like a dream, and does not say that they are wholly non-existent. If the reader reads this passage as sweeping away cause and effect, he runs straight into the wrong view the treatise-author refutes.
15. The explanation of black deeds, white deeds, black-and-white deeds, and deeds without outflows. After citing the sūtra's 「得黑、白等四種業不」 tr. "does he obtain the four kinds of deeds, black, white, and the rest?" and 「不」 tr. "no", the treatise-author glosses the names of the four deeds one by one, and his glossing takes the place of retribution as its ground throughout: black deeds are unwholesome deeds, whose retribution is the hells and the other places where suffering and vexation are undergone, and beings, 「以大苦惱悶極，故名為黑」 tr. "because of great suffering and vexation swoon away to the utmost; therefore it is named black"; the place where the retribution of wholesome deeds is received is what are called the gods, 「以其受樂隨意自在明了」 tr. "because they receive pleasure at will, being sovereign and clear", and therefore it is named white deeds, and these deeds are the gods of the three realms; the place where the retribution of wholesome and unwholesome deeds is received is what are called humans, asuras, and the rest of the eight classes, 「此處亦受樂、亦受苦」 tr. "this place undergoes both pleasure and suffering", and therefore it is named black-and-white deeds; deeds without outflows 「能破不善有漏業，能拔眾生令離善惡果報中」 tr. "can break unwholesome deeds with outflows, and can pull beings out so that they are free from the retribution of wholesome and evil". Of the four items, the first three all take their names from the marks of the retribution received, while the fourth takes its name from what it breaks—the sources of the names are already not of one kind, and this is exactly why the objection of the next passage arises.
16. Why deeds without outflows are neither white nor black—two answers. The treatise-author sets a question: deeds without outflows ought to be white; why are they said to be neither white nor black? The question is reasonably asked, because what is without outflows is pure, and by the pattern of the first three items it should take its name from its mark. The answer has two parts. First, although dharmas without outflows are pure and without stain, 「以空、無相、無作故無所分別，不得言白」 tr. "because they are emptiness, the signless, and non-action, there is nothing in them that discriminates, and one may not say that they are white"; moreover 「黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白」 tr. "black and white are dharmas that stand over against each other; because herein there is no standing over against each other, one may not say that they are white". Second, 「復次，無漏業能滅一切，諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白。」 tr. "Again, deeds without outflows can extinguish everything; it is because there is discrimination within the contemplations that there is black and white; because herein there is no contemplation, there is no white." The first answer speaks from the non-discrimination of the dharma's substance and from the failure of standing over against each other; the second answer speaks from whether there is contemplation or not. Taking the two answers together, one can see that 「非白非黑」 tr. "neither white nor black" is not a third colour; it lies outside standing over against each other. Whenever one meets a sūtra or treatise setting up a name by double negation, first ask whether the two sides it negates are set up by standing over against each other—once that standing over against each other is broken, the double negation is clear of itself.
17. The reason the six destinies are still distinguished though the four deeds are not obtained—without disease there is no need of medicine; atoms heaped into a mountain. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's objection and broadens it on his behalf: if there are no black deeds, how does one speak of the hells, the animals, the hungry ghosts? If there are no white deeds, how does one speak of gods and humans? If there are no black-and-white deeds, how does one speak of the destiny of the asuras? If there are no deeds neither white nor black, how does one speak of the srota-āpanna up to the arhat? The four questions go out together, and then he cites the Buddha's answer. The Buddha's answer again uses a counter-supposition: 「若一切眾生自知諸法自性空者，菩薩不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提意，亦不於六道中拔出眾生」 tr. "if all beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of self-nature, the bodhisattva would not arouse the intent of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor would he pull beings out from within the six destinies"—「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明」 tr. "just as without disease there is no need of medicine, and without darkness no need of the light of a lamp". Next he states the actual case, and here the treatise-author gives the most detailed sequence of defilement in the whole chapter: because they do not know the emptiness of specific marks, following the mind they grasp at marks and give rise to clinging; because of clinging they are tainted; because they are tainted they follow the five desires; because they follow the five desires they are covered by craving; through the causes and conditions of craving there are stinginess, falsehood, jealousy, anger, and quarrelling; because of anger they raise up all kinds of sinful deeds 「無所識知」 tr. "with no awareness or knowledge whatever", and so at the end of life they receive birth according to their deeds, 「常往來六道中，無復窮已」 tr. "constantly going and coming within the six destinies, with no end ever again". Next he speaks of the bodhisattva who hears the Dharma and pities them with kindness, vowing to 「破眾生顛倒，令解諸法空相」 tr. "break the inversions of beings and cause them to understand the mark of the emptiness of dharmas". Finally he gives the judgement on the lightness and heaviness of the fetters: 「若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度」 tr. "if they give rise only to the notion of beings and dharmas, the fetters are still light, and they are easily delivered"; if within this they raise up craving and anger and make heavy deeds, it is heavy bondage and hard to deliver, 「譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動」 tr. "just as atoms heaped up make a mountain, hard to move". This passage is the one in this chapter with the fullest pattern of the disease, and in reading it one may not compress it: grasping at marks, clinging, taint, the five desires, craving, stinginess, falsehood, jealousy, anger, quarrelling, sinful deeds—each link is the cause of the next, and to skip reading a single link is to lose the sequence. The simile of atoms heaped into a mountain especially must be watched: the mountain was not made at one time, and so it cannot be moved at one time either.
18. Why the Buddha speaks only of suffering, origin, cessation, and path—the simile of first removing the disease in grave illness. The treatise-author sets the second great question of this chapter: the subtle and wonderful dharmas the Buddha has trained in for immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas—the eighteen unshared dharmas and so on up to unobstructed liberation and all the other very deep deeds—why does he speak only of suffering, origin, cessation, and path? This question asks, on the reader's behalf, the doubt about the chapter's title—the four truths are a dharma shared with the two vehicles; why, in the prajñā assembly, do they become the teaching the Buddha gives after obtaining awakening? The answer is only two sentences: 「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。」 tr. "What beings fear most urgently is nothing more than suffering; once suffering has been removed for them, only then are they shown the Buddha path." And he gives a simile: 「如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」 tr. "As when a person is gravely ill, removing the disease comes first as the urgent thing; only afterwards does one adorn his body with precious things and clothing." This answer fixes the place of the four truths very exactly: they are not the ultimate dharma, they are the urgent dharma; they do not run counter to the very deep dharmas, they are the earlier step by which the very deep dharmas can be bestowed. If the reader belittles the four truths because of this, he does not know the disease; if because of this he stops at the four truths, he does not know the precious things and clothing.
19. Explaining suffering, origin, cessation, and path one by one, and right view in the eightfold noble path—like wine spreading a medicine. Having fixed the place of the four truths, the treatise-author at once glosses them item by item. Suffering: 「受五受眾身是一切苦本，性即是苦」 tr. "receiving a body of the five aggregates of clinging is the root of all suffering, and its very nature is suffering"; briefly stated, it is birth, old age, sickness, and the rest. The origin of suffering: craving and the other afflictions; 「愛是心中舊法」 tr. "craving is an old dharma within the mind", and therefore the Buddha says 「愛能生後身，故是苦因」 tr. "craving can give birth to the later body, and so it is the cause of suffering"; the cause of suffering is precisely origin. Cessation: 「若人欲捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷苦則滅，斷愛即是苦滅」 tr. "if a person wishes to relinquish suffering, he should first sever craving; when craving is severed, suffering ceases; severing craving is precisely the cessation of suffering". The path: contemplating all kinds of causes and conditions of the five aggregates, and contemplating the faults and wrongs of suffering and of the origin of suffering, namely 「無常、苦、空、無我」 tr. "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self", and further contemplating them 「如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊」 tr. "like a disease, like a sore, like an enemy, like a thief" and so on; within the eightfold noble path right view is at its head, and 「餘七事助成發起」 tr. "the other seven matters help to accomplish it and set it going", and it can sever the craving within all dharmas—「如以酒發藥」 tr. "as wine is used to spread a medicine". The four items glossed, the last sentence gathers it back to the sūtra: this person no longer craves anything at all in all the world and obtains release from the fire of suffering, and 「然後示以妙法」 tr. "only then is he shown the wonderful Dharma". In this passage there are two places to watch: first, the four truths are strung on one thread—the substance of suffering, the cause of suffering, the severing of the cause which is cessation, the instrument for severing the cause which is the path—not four items set side by side; second, what the simile of wine spreading a medicine compares is the other seven factors helping to accomplish right view; it does not say that right view must rely on some outside thing—the simile takes the function of spreading, not the thing itself.
20. The question of ‘someone says’; the wholesome dharmas that aid the path are all gathered within the four truths, and the Three Jewels are set up from this. Since the sūtra text has said 「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」 tr. "all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths", the treatise-author first, with 「復次，此中佛自說因緣」 tr. "Again, herein the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions", makes clear that this phrase comes from the Buddha's mouth, and next cites a question from someone else: someone says, 「佛何以但說苦等四法？」 tr. "Why does the Buddha speak only of the four dharmas, suffering and the rest?"—the same purport as the question the treatise-author himself set in passage 18, but from a different person. The treatise-author does not set up a new answer, but answers it directly with the Buddha's words: 「一切助道善法皆攝在四諦中。」 tr. "All the wholesome dharmas that aid the path are gathered together within the four truths." Then he follows the sūtra downward: 「助道善法因緣故，分別有三寶。眾生不信三寶故，不得離六道生死。」 tr. "Through the causes and conditions of the wholesome dharmas that aid the path, the Three Jewels are distinguished. Because beings do not believe in the Three Jewels, they do not obtain release from the birth and death of the six destinies." The key of this passage is that it links the four truths and the Three Jewels into one chain—wholesome dharmas enter the four truths, the four truths set up the Three Jewels, and the Three Jewels are what one relies on to leave the six destinies; and so the gate of teaching spoken all the way down in this chapter from 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks" here at last has a place to settle. If the reader asks why the meaning of emptiness does not destroy the Three Jewels, the answer lies in this section.
21. The coarse question is not coarse—it is born because truth and knowledge come together. The treatise-author sets the third great question of this chapter and first raises the objection himself: why did Subhūti ask such a coarse question, saying 「為以苦滅、以苦智滅？以集滅、集智滅？」 tr. "Is it by suffering that cessation comes, or by the knowledge of suffering that cessation comes? By origin that cessation comes, or by the knowledge of origin that cessation comes?" He answers: 「此非麁問！」 tr. "This is not a coarse question!" and then points out what is really asked—whether cessation comes by seeing the substance of the four truths, or by using knowledge. Next he gives two objections to show that it is not coarse: if one obtained the path by the truth of suffering, then 「一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道」 tr. "all beings, oxen, sheep, and the rest, should also obtain the path", since oxen and sheep too dwell in suffering; if one obtained the path by using the knowledge of suffering, then 「離苦則無智」 tr. "apart from suffering there is no knowledge", and apart from the knowledge of suffering it is not named the truth of suffering but is named only suffering. Finally he concludes: 「苦諦、苦智和合故生」 tr. "it is born because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together", and one may not say that cessation comes only by suffering, or only by knowledge. What this passage teaches is the way to read a question: when a question that looks crude and shallow turns into a fault at each of its two ends once each is pushed to the bottom, that question is precisely the one meant to press out the meaning in between. The objection of the oxen and sheep especially rewards reflection—it tests the most splendid position with the most unseemly example, and the position at once fails to stand.
22. The Buddha answers that the four dharmas are born from conditions and are false, and therefore cannot be said to bring cessation. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's answer: 「不以苦諦滅，亦不以苦智滅，乃至道諦、道智亦如是」 tr. "it is not by the truth of suffering that cessation comes, nor by the knowledge of suffering that cessation comes; and so on up to the truth of the path and the knowledge of the path, it is likewise", while the positive word the Buddha sets up is 「是四諦平等即是滅」 tr. "the equality of these four truths is precisely cessation". The answer done, the treatise-author asks himself the reason: 「是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性故不名為實，不實故云何能滅？」 tr. "These four dharmas, suffering and the rest, are all born from conditions and are false and unreal; because they are without self-nature they are not named real; since they are not real, how could they bring cessation?" This section gives the reason for the denial in the fifth passage of the sūtra text: the four truths cannot be the instrument that brings cessation, not because they are untrue, but because they are born from conditions and so have no self-nature; what has no self-nature is not named real, and an unreal dharma cannot be what brings cessation. The reader should tell two meanings apart: to say that the four truths are false is said with regard to their self-nature; to say that the equality of the four truths is precisely cessation is said with regard to their real mark. They are the same four truths, and the two statements do not obstruct each other.
23. Why the truth of the path and the truth of cessation too are false and deceptive—the simile of the raft; apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; the going out of a lamp. The treatise-author sets up an objection, and a very weighty one: the two truths of suffering and origin are with outflows and are dharmas practised by ordinary people, so to say that they are false and deceptive is still acceptable; the truth of the path is a dharma without outflows and without clinging, and though it is born from the coming together of causes and conditions it is not false and deceptive; the truth of cessation is an unconditioned dharma and does not exist from causes and conditions. How can it be said that the four dharmas are all false and deceptive? The answer too falls into three parts. First, with regard to the truth of the path: 「初得道，知二諦是虛誑」 tr. "at the time of first obtaining the path, one knows that the two truths are false and deceptive"; when one is about to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, 「亦知道諦虛誑，以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻」 tr. "one also knows that the truth of the path is false and deceptive, and by the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says"—the raft is not left unused; having crossed, one does not carry it on one's back. Second, with regard to the truth of cessation: 「滅諦亦無定法」 tr. "the truth of cessation too has no fixed dharma", and he cites a sūtra as proof: 「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為」 tr. "apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; it is because of the conditioned that the unconditioned is spoken of"—the name of the unconditioned is set up in dependence on the conditioned, and what is set up in dependence has nothing fixed. Third, he gives a simile and warns against idle discourse: 「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」 tr. "The cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse." Finally he gathers it in with the Buddha's words: 「不以用苦乃至用道得滅。」 tr. "It is not by using suffering, and so on up to using the path, that cessation is obtained." This passage is the deepest place of meaning in the whole chapter, and the measure the treatise-author keeps is very steady: he says that the truth of the path is false and deceptive without abolishing the cultivation of the path, and says that the truth of cessation has nothing fixed without sweeping away nirvāṇa; what is refuted lies only in the mind of idle discourse that seeks its whereabouts. Further, the 「二諦」 tr. "two truths" the treatise-author speaks of here are, as can be known from the truth of the path and the truth of cessation set against them, precisely the two above, suffering and the origin of suffering.
24. What the equality of the four truths is—where there is no place of the eight dharmas, and the marks of dharmas abiding constantly and not ceasing. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's question and the Buddha's answer: 「若無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智，是則平等。」 tr. "If there is no place of the eight dharmas—namely the four truths and the knowledges of the four truths—this is equality." The eight dharmas are the four truths and the four knowledges; this is the treatise's gloss on the sixth passage of the sūtra text, counting the sūtra's 「無苦、無苦智」 tr. "no suffering, no knowledge of suffering" up to 「無道、無道智」 tr. "no path, no knowledge of the path" as eight items, which reads clearly at a glance. Next he cites the latter half of the sūtra and broadens it: the four truths are as they truly are, not deceiving, not different; they are suchness, the nature of dharmas, the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the limit of reality; 「若有佛、無佛，法相常住」 tr. "whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly", and 「不用心、心數法及諸觀，但為不誑眾生故」 tr. "they do not use mind or mental-factor dharmas or the contemplations; it is only for the sake of not deceiving beings". The treatise-author further gives a passage of his own that discloses by contrast: whatever abides upon all the other dharmas is inversion, because it is born from the retribution of false clinging and inversion; though it can give humans and gods joy and pleasure, 「久久皆虛妄變異」 tr. "in time it is all false and changes"; 「但有一法，所謂諸法實相，以不誑故，常住不滅」 tr. "only one dharma, namely the real mark of all dharmas, because it does not deceive, abides constantly and does not cease". This passage resolves the doubt of contradiction left by the sixth passage: what is absent is the eight dharmas that can serve as objects of contemplation; what abides constantly is the real mark of all dharmas; the one lies within subject and object, the other outside subject and object; therefore absence and constant abiding are spoken of together without hindering each other.
25. Penetrating the real truth and entering the bodhisattva's position—whether within the four truths or not within the four truths, all is empty. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's question, 「云何菩薩通達得實諦，過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva penetrate and obtain the real truth, pass beyond the ground of the śrāvaka and of the pratyekabuddha, and enter the bodhisattva's position", together with the Buddha's answer: if the bodhisattva reflects and measures in seeking dharmas, 「無有一法可得定相」 tr. "there is not a single dharma whose fixed mark can be found", and he sees that all dharmas are empty—「若在四諦、若不在四諦」 tr. "whether within the four truths or not within the four truths". Here the treatise-author supplies a definition the sūtra text does not have: 「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡；餘在四諦。」 tr. "As for what is not the four truths: space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning; the rest is within the four truths." This supplement is extremely important: the sūtra text only speaks of what is contained by the four truths and what is not contained, and the reader does not know what the things not contained are; the treatise-author directly names the two dharmas, space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning, to make it concrete, and thereupon the words 「皆空」 tr. "all empty" at last have a whole that can be counted. When reading the treatise one meets such supplementary notes, one should know that it is the treatise-author supplying what the sūtra text left out, not setting up a new meaning.
26. Why ‘emptiness too is empty’ need not be said separately—in the ground of the stage of nature one surely hopes to become a Buddha, and on the ground of dhyāna one penetrates the four truths without clinging. The treatise-author sets a question: why is it not said 「空亦空觀，入菩薩位」 tr. "contemplating that emptiness too is empty, one enters the bodhisattva's position"? He answers 「不須是說」 tr. "there is no need to say it this way", and the reason is only one sentence: 「若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。」 tr. "If one says that dharmas are empty, this is then empty: emptiness too is empty; if this emptiness were not empty, it would not be named the emptiness of all."—if the words that dharmas are empty are thoroughgoing, emptiness itself is already within what is emptied, and there is no need to set up a separate contemplation. Next he explains the sūtra's ‘abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit’: the ground of the stage of nature is what is called the bodhisattva's Dharma-position, just as in the śrāvaka's dharma the dharma of warmth, the dharma of the summit, the dharma of acceptance, and the highest worldly dharma are named the ground of the stage of nature; 「是法隨順無漏道，故名為性，是中住必望得道；菩薩亦如是，安住是性地中，必望作佛」 tr. "these dharmas accord with the path without outflows, and therefore they are named nature; abiding within them, one surely hopes to obtain the path; the bodhisattva too is like this: abiding securely in this ground of the stage of nature, he surely hopes to become a Buddha". Comparing the śrāvaka's four wholesome roots with the bodhisattva's Dharma-position takes their sense of 「必望」 tr. "surely hoping"; it does not mean that the two are of one substance. Finally he explains the penetration on the ground of dhyāna: the bodhisattva, abiding on the ground of dhyāna, gathers the mind, discriminates, reflects on, and measures dharmas, and penetrates the four truths—knowing and seeing suffering, 「亦非緣苦生心」 tr. "yet not giving rise to a mind that takes suffering as its object"; he knows that suffering is ordinary people receiving a body and clinging to the causes and conditions of suffering, and therefore undergoing all kinds of sorrow and vexation, and that this person's body is 「皆如賊、如怨，無常、空等」 tr. "entirely like a thief, like an enemy, impermanent, empty, and so on"; having obtained this, he 「即時捨，不取苦相，亦不緣苦諦」 tr. "relinquishes it then and there, does not grasp at the mark of suffering, and does not take the truth of suffering as object either"; because of the power of the bodhisattva's Dharma-position, and so on up to the truth of the path likewise, 「但一心迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "he only dedicates it with one mind to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The last sentence is especially vital: 「知是四諦藥病相對，亦不著是四諦，但觀諸法如實相，不作四種分別觀。」 tr. "He knows that these four truths stand as medicine over against disease, and he does not cling to these four truths either; he only contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is, and does not make the contemplation of the four kinds of discrimination." These four Chinese characters, medicine over against disease, are the overall verdict on this chapter's teaching of the four truths.
27. How one contemplates dharmas as they truly are—contemplate emptiness, by the emptiness of specific marks. The treatise-author cites the two questions and two answers at the end of the sūtra: asked how one contemplates dharmas as they truly are, the Buddha says 「觀空」 tr. "contemplate emptiness", and broadens it, saying 「若菩薩能觀一切法若大若小皆空，是名如實觀」 tr. "if the bodhisattva can contemplate all dharmas, whether great or small, as all empty, this is named contemplating as it truly is"; asked again by what emptiness, the Buddha answers 「用自相空」 tr. "by the emptiness of specific marks". This passage is extremely short in the treatise, almost nothing but a citation of the sūtra, yet its position is to carry on from above and open what follows—since the text above has said that one does not make the contemplation of the four kinds of discrimination, here it must state what contemplation takes its place; the answer falls on the emptiness of specific marks, and why the emptiness of specific marks alone is singled out is the business of the next passage. When reading the treatise one sees such a short passage that purely cites the sūtra, one may not skip it: it is the question-head the treatise-author sets up for what follows.
28. Why among the eighteen emptinesses only the emptiness of specific marks is spoken of—the emptiness of the middle way. The treatise-author sets the very last question of the chapter: among the eighteen emptinesses, why does the Buddha speak only of the emptiness of specific marks? He answers 「是中道空」 tr. "this is the emptiness of the middle way", and orders it in three layers: 「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」 tr. "Inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest are the small emptinesses; ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses; the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness." Next he states the use by which it stands in the middle: 「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中」 tr. "because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and it can enter into the very deep emptiness"—since specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the practitioner has a place to set his hand to, and the mind does not sink; once specific marks have been refuted, he can turn into the very deep emptiness of the ultimate and of nothing to be attained. This is the pivot of the gate of practice in the whole chapter: emptiness has shallow and deep, and the place of entry lies in the middle. Next he joins the sūtra text and broadens its fruit: the bodhisattva who obtains such a dharma contemplates all dharmas as all empty, 「乃至不見一法有性可住得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "and so on up to: he does not see that a single dharma has a nature in which to abide and so obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; he contemplates dharmas as like awakening, and awakening 「亦自性空」 tr. "too is empty of self-nature", 「非佛所作，非大菩薩所作，非阿羅漢、辟支佛所作，常寂滅相，無戲論語言」 tr. "not made by the Buddha, not made by the great bodhisattvas, not made by the arhats or the pratyekabuddhas; it is constantly the mark of quiescence, without idle discourse or words". Here the reader can look back at the sūtra text of the eighth passage—there it says that the mark of being without nature is not made by the buddhas; here it says that awakening too is empty of self-nature; the sūtra and the treatise in these two places are precisely one meaning.
29. The power of skilful means—the deep thought of the mind of great compassion, and leading on by means of the thirty-two marks. The whole chapter ends on a ‘not stating directly’. The treatise-author cites the last words of the sūtra: beings cannot know and see the mark as it truly is, and therefore the bodhisattva practises prajñā and 「以方便力，為眾生說法」 tr. "by the power of skilful means teaches the Dharma for beings"; at once he glosses the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means": the bodhisattva obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva's position, penetrates the bodhisattva's truth of the highest meaning, and 「觀是道相甚深微妙，無得無捨；用妙智慧不可得，何況可得口說」 tr. "contemplates this mark of the path as very deep, subtle, and wonderful, with nothing obtained and nothing relinquished; even the wonderful wisdom used is unfindable, how much less can it be spoken by the mouth". Next he brings out the deep thought of the bodhisattva's mind of great compassion—if I state this dharma directly, beings 「則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄」 tr. "would not believe it or accept it, and so would destroy the Dharma and fall into hell"; therefore I should first accomplish all wholesome dharmas and adorn my body with the thirty-two marks to lead beings on, raise up the power of the supernormal powers of the buddhas, accomplish the Buddha path, and obtain sovereignty over all dharmas; finally he discloses its urgency by contrast with one sentence: 「若讚惡法，眾生猶尚當受，何況實法！」 tr. "If even when evil dharmas are praised beings will still accept them, how much more a real dharma!" The concluding words are 「是菩薩如所願思惟行，為眾生說，使皆度脫」 tr. "this bodhisattva reflects and practises according to his vow, proclaims it for beings, and causes them all to obtain deliverance". This passage joins head to tail with the fourth passage of the sūtra text: there it says that because beings do not know, the Buddha teaches the four truths; here it says that because beings do not believe, the bodhisattva does not state emptiness directly—within one chapter the teaching is twice set up for the sake of 「不知」 tr. "not knowing": the former sets up the four truths, the latter sets up the marks and minor signs and skilful means. Only here does the meaning of emptiness of the whole chapter at last come to rest on the human person.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」 tr. "within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution" as sweeping away cause and effect. Right after saying this the Buddha adds 「眾生不知是諸法自相空」 tr. "beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks", and sets out at length the order of retribution of the three deeds and the three realms; the treatise-author further judges plainly that 「決定取相邪見、墮邪見」 tr. "to grasp at marks as fixed is a wrong view, and one falls into wrong views", and says that the five destinies 「假名有」 tr. "exist by provisional names" and are 「如幻、如夢」 tr. "like an illusion, like a dream". What is like an illusion, like a dream is not without anything existent; it exists but without reality. If, because of the meaning of emptiness, one says that deeds and retribution are wholly non-existent, that is precisely the wrong view of grasping at marks as fixed that the treatise-author rebukes here—what is grasped has merely been exchanged for another mark.
Do not read the Buddha's denial that one is delivered by the four truths or the four knowledges as the Buddha abolishing the four truths. What the sūtra text denies is ‘taking some one truth or some one knowledge as what can deliver’; what it sets up is 「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa"; the treatise-author explains the reason as the four dharmas being 「皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性」 tr. "all born from conditions, false and unreal, without self-nature". And within the same sūtra text, it is precisely after obtaining awakening that the Buddha 「為眾生說四聖諦」 tr. "teaches the four noble truths for beings", and says 「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中」 tr. "all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths", and that from this the Three Jewels are distinguished. On one side it says the four truths are a teaching set up; on the other side it says the four truths may not be grasped as the instrument that can deliver; only with the two statements standing together is it the sūtra's intent; take one and discard the other, and of the setting up of the Three Jewels and the realisation of nirvāṇa, one is bound to be lost.
Do not read 「無苦、無苦智」 tr. "no suffering, no knowledge of suffering" and 「法相常住」 tr. "the marks of dharmas abide constantly" as contradicting each other. The treatise-author has already glossed the first half as 「無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智」 tr. "no place of the eight dharmas—namely the four truths and the knowledges of the four truths", which speaks of absence with regard to the eight dharma-items that can serve as objects of contemplation; what abides constantly in the latter half is 「諸法實相」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas", and the treatise-author further discloses it by contrast with 「住一切餘法皆顛倒」 tr. "whatever abides upon all the other dharmas is inversion" and 「久久皆虛妄變異」 tr. "in time it is all false and changes", saying 「但有一法，所謂諸法實相，以不誑故，常住不滅」 tr. "only one dharma, namely the real mark of all dharmas, because it does not deceive, abides constantly and does not cease". What is absent lies within subject and object; what abides constantly is not where mind, mental-factor dharmas, and the contemplations go—so absence and constant abiding are not on the same level and do not make a contradiction.
Do not read 「道諦虛誑」 tr. "the truth of the path is false and deceptive" as the cultivation of the path being useless. The occasions the treatise-author names are perfectly clear: 「初得道，知二諦是虛誑」 tr. "at the time of first obtaining the path, one knows that the two truths are false and deceptive", while knowing that the truth of the path is false and deceptive comes at the time when one is 「將入無餘涅槃」 tr. "about to enter nirvāṇa without remainder", and its method is 「以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻」 tr. "by the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says". As a thing, the raft is needed before the crossing and relinquished after the crossing; the relinquishing comes after the crossing, not before it. If, before crossing, one first debates the falseness of the raft, both shores are lost. The side of the truth of cessation is the same—what 「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為」 tr. "apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; it is because of the conditioned that the unconditioned is spoken of" refutes is the idle discourse that seeks the whereabouts of the unconditioned, not a sweeping away of nirvāṇa; therefore the treatise-author follows it closely with 「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所」 tr. "the cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse".
Do not read ‘deeds without outflows are neither white nor black’ as setting up a third kind of deed. What the treatise-author's two answers both rest on is the breaking of standing over against each other: 「黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白」 tr. "black and white are dharmas that stand over against each other; because herein there is no standing over against each other, one may not say that they are white", and again 「諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白」 tr. "it is because there is discrimination within the contemplations that there is black and white; because herein there is no contemplation, there is no white". It can be seen that the double negation lies outside standing over against each other; it does not add another colour beyond black and white. The first three deeds take their names from the marks of the retribution received, while deeds without outflows take their name from 「能破不善有漏業」 tr. "can break unwholesome deeds with outflows"—since the grounds of naming are already not of one kind, one naturally may not demand, by the pattern of the first three items, that it should have the mark of a colour.
Do not read the emptiness of specific marks as the highest emptiness among the eighteen emptinesses. The treatise-author plainly lists its three layers: 「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」 tr. "Inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest are the small emptinesses; ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses; the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness." The reason it alone is singled out is that it stands in the middle and offers a place to set one's hand to—「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中」 tr. "because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and it can enter into the very deep emptiness". If one takes the middle emptiness for the ultimate standard and stops there, the gate of ultimate emptiness and the emptiness of nothing to be attained does not open; if one disdains it as not high enough and skips the steps to rush straight at the very deep, there is no principle to refute and the mind sinks. What the treatise-author points to is the middle stretch of one road, not a lofty peak.
Bearing on Practice
The first use is to take the four Chinese characters 「眾生不知」 tr. "beings do not know" as the place where one stands oneself. The whole chapter twice sets up the teaching by a counter-supposition: if beings knew for themselves that dharmas are empty of specific marks, the bodhisattva would not arouse the mind and would not pull beings out; if all beings knew for themselves that dharmas are empty of self-nature, then 「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明」 tr. "just as without disease there is no need of medicine, and without darkness no need of the light of a lamp". These two counter-suppositions are not rhetoric; they are a mirror for the practitioner's self-examination—today I am still among those to be delivered precisely because I still do not know for myself. Whoever, reading the meaning of emptiness, feels at ease may hold these two sentences up as a mirror: if one truly knew for oneself, why are craving and anger still actively present as before? While knowing has not yet arrived, the medicine may not be stopped.
The second use is that the sequence of defilement can serve for checking oneself link by link. The sequence the treatise-author lists is very fine: because one does not know the emptiness of specific marks, following the mind one grasps at marks; because of grasping at marks one gives rise to clinging; because of clinging one is tainted; because one is tainted one follows the five desires; because one follows the five desires one is covered by craving; from craving there are stinginess, falsehood, jealousy, anger, and quarrelling; from anger one raises up all kinds of sinful deeds. Looking back over one day, one can ask link by link: which link am I in now? If one is still at grasping at marks, it is still easy to undo; if one has already reached quarrelling, it is the heavy bondage the treatise-author speaks of. The simile of atoms heaped into a mountain is set up precisely for this—since the mountain was not made at one time, one cannot seek to move it quickly either; but if each day one adds no further atom, the mountain does not grow.
The third use is to make the four truths medicine over against disease and not something grasped. The treatise-author's verdict in the final passage, 「知是四諦藥病相對，亦不著是四諦」 tr. "he knows that these four truths stand as medicine over against disease, and he does not cling to these four truths either", the fourteen Chinese characters, is the right practice this chapter gives the practitioner. The first clause has one honestly take the medicine—suffering is to be known, origin to be severed, cessation to be realised, the path to be cultivated, and the sequence may not be skipped; the second clause has one take it without grasping—not taking the medicine taken for one's body, not exalting oneself with the knowledge that knows suffering. What the sūtra text calls 「知苦，不生緣苦心」 tr. "he knows suffering, yet does not give rise to a mind that takes suffering as its object", and what the treatise-author calls 「得是已，即時捨，不取苦相」 tr. "having obtained this, he relinquishes it then and there and does not grasp at the mark of suffering", speak of one and the same matter: it can be put to use and yet one does not stick to it.
The fourth use is that when one meets a very deep dharma and cannot accept it, one should look at the bodhisattva's skilful means. When the treatise-author explains the power of skilful means, he says that though the bodhisattva has penetrated the truth of the highest meaning he does not state it directly, because 「若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄」 tr. "if I were to state this dharma directly, they would not believe it or accept it, and so would destroy the Dharma and fall into hell"; therefore he first accomplishes wholesome dharmas and adorns his body with the marks to lead beings on. This section is of use to two kinds of people: one who feels his own faculties to be dull can know that the various preliminary skilful means the buddhas and bodhisattvas bestow do not look down on him, but fit the illness; one who wishes to teach the Dharma to others can know that a deep dharma is not to be taught without regard to the person, and that its harm lies not in the speaker's pride but in the hearer's destroying it—「若讚惡法，眾生猶尚當受，何況實法」 tr. "if even when evil dharmas are praised beings will still accept them, how much more a real dharma" is precisely a reminder to the speaker to look first at the hearer's capacity.
The fifth use is to take the middle emptiness as the place to set one's hand to. The reason the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness lies in 「自相有理破故而心不沒」 tr. "because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink"—it gives a person a mark that can be refuted, so the practice can get going; and once it has been refuted one can enter the very deep emptiness, so one does not fall into the place of annihilation. For the practitioner, in daily use, to contemplate the specific mark of a single dharma and see that it has no self-nature is a task that can really and truly be done; since it can be done, the mind does not sink, and only then can one speak of ultimate emptiness and the emptiness of nothing to be attained. If at the very start one takes the deepest emptiness, one often ends up in the position of speaking it with the mouth while the body does not practise it—exactly the sinking of the mind the treatise-author speaks of.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins with Subhūti asking what the dharmas of the Buddha are, and the Buddha answers that the bodhisattva's dharmas are also the dharmas of the Buddha, the difference lying in the obtaining of the omniscience of all kinds, and brings out the simile of heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit and the judgement of practising within the path without obstruction and being without obscuration within the path of liberation; next comes the objection that within the emptiness of specific marks there should be no distinctions from the six destinies up to the samyaksaṃbuddha, and the Buddha accepts the objection and brings it back to beings, not knowing the emptiness of specific marks, making the three deeds, wholesome, evil, and unmoving; next he asks whether the Buddha, having obtained awakening, obtains the five destinies, whether he obtains black, white, and the other deeds, and if he does not obtain them how he still speaks of the hells up to the buddhas, and the Buddha answers that because beings truly do not know the emptiness of self-nature they do not obtain liberation, while the bodhisattva, having obtained awakening, teaches the four noble truths for beings, all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter the four truths, and from this the Three Jewels are distinguished; next he asks whether one is delivered by the four truths or the four knowledges, and the Buddha answers that one is delivered neither by truth nor by knowledge, and that the equality of the four truths is precisely nirvāṇa; next he asks what the equality of the four truths is, and the Buddha answers no suffering and no knowledge of suffering up to no path and no knowledge of the path, and further says that the four truths are suchness, not-different, the mark of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the limit of reality, and that whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha the marks of dharmas abide constantly; next he asks how one penetrates the real truth without falling into the two vehicles and enters directly into the bodhisattva's position, and the Buddha answers: seeing dharmas as they truly are, obtaining the dharma without anything existent, seeing that the dharmas contained and not contained by the four truths are all empty, abiding in the ground of the stage of nature without falling from the summit, being able to give rise to the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions, and on the ground of concentration penetrating the four truths without giving rise to a mind that takes them as object and clings; finally he asks how one contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is, and the Buddha answers contemplate that dharmas are empty, and answers the emptiness of self-nature, and says that the mark of being without nature is awakening, not made by the buddhas and so on up to not made by the bodhisattvas, concluding that because beings do not know and do not see, the bodhisattva by the power of skilful means teaches the Dharma for them. Treatise ① explains following the sūtra, yet at three places it sets up separate questions and answers: first it asks why Subhūti had the doubt about the dharmas of the Buddha and the dharmas of the bodhisattva, and answers that the Buddha teaches the bodhisattva to practise as the Buddha practises, and gives the judgement of all-pervading, sharp, and dull, the simile of the moon of the fourteenth and fifteenth day, the simile of heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, and the boundary of the vajra samādhi; next it cites the objection about the emptiness of specific marks and explains the three deeds, their two divisions, their two bindings, and unmoving deeds, making clear that if they knew for themselves that dharmas are empty of nature they would not raise up deeds; next it asks why, the Buddha having earlier said that he does not fall into the five destinies, he now says that he does not obtain them, and answers that grasping at marks as fixed is a wrong view and that the five destinies are provisional names, like an illusion, like a dream; next it glosses the four deeds, black, white, black-and-white, and without outflows, asks why those without outflows are neither white nor black, and answers with the two meanings of there being no standing over against each other and no contemplation; next it cites the objection that the four deeds are not obtained and yet the six destinies are still distinguished, and sets out at length the sequence from grasping at marks and giving rise to clinging up to quarrelling and sinful deeds, the lightness and heaviness of the fetters, and the simile of atoms heaped up into a mountain; next it asks why the Buddha speaks only of suffering, origin, cessation, and path, answers that what beings fear is nothing more than suffering, and gives the simile of first removing the disease in grave illness, and glosses item by item the four truths and right view of the eightfold noble path, like wine used to spread a medicine; next it cites the question of someone says and answers it with the Buddha's words, making clear that the wholesome dharmas that aid the path are gathered within the four truths and that the Three Jewels are set up from this; next it asks about Subhūti's coarse question, answers that this is not a coarse question, and gives the objection of oxen and sheep obtaining the path and the meaning of truth and knowledge coming together; next it explains that the four dharmas are born from conditions and are false and therefore cannot be said to bring cessation, and takes as deepest the objection that the truth of the path and the truth of cessation too are false and deceptive—answering with the simile of the raft, with apart from the conditioned there being no unconditioned, and with the cessation of suffering being like the going out of a lamp, whose whereabouts one should not seek in idle discourse; next it explains that where there is no place of the eight dharmas this is precisely equality, and that the real mark of all dharmas abides constantly and does not cease; next it explains that whether within the four truths or not within the four truths all is empty, and supplies space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning as the dharmas that are not the four truths; next it asks why the contemplation that emptiness too is empty is not spoken of, answers that there is no need to say it this way, and compares the śrāvaka's warmth, summit, acceptance, and highest worldly dharma to the ground of the stage of nature in its surely hoping to obtain the path, explains penetrating the four truths on the ground of dhyāna without clinging to the four truths, and judges the four truths to be medicine over against disease; next it asks why among the eighteen emptinesses only the emptiness of specific marks is spoken of, answers that this is the emptiness of the middle way, and divides the three layers of the small emptinesses, the middle emptiness, and the very deep emptinesses; finally it glosses the power of skilful means, brings out the words of the bodhisattva's deep thought with the mind of great compassion and of adorning his body with the thirty-two marks to lead beings on, and concludes with reflecting and practising according to his vow, proclaiming it for beings, and causing them all to obtain deliverance.
As for the title of this chapter, the editions hold two names side by side, and both are recorded as they are. The base text has 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths", while the Palace edition has 「差別品」 tr. "Difference", and the Ming edition, below the chapter number, further carries an interlinear note saying 「有本作差別品」 tr. "one edition has it as Difference". Going up to the mother sūtra being explained, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, its chapter heading is precisely 「差別品第八十四」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-four, Difference", and below the sūtra's title there is likewise attached an interlinear note saying 「丹本作四諦品」 tr. "the Khitan edition has it as The Four Truths"—that is, the mother sūtra's side takes Difference as the proper name and the Four Truths as the variant name, while this treatise's base text takes the Four Truths as the proper name and Difference as the variant name; the two names stand as outside and inside to each other, not one present and the other absent. Each name has what it takes up: the reading 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" takes up where the gate of teaching comes home, since this chapter's sūtra section precisely gathers all the wholesome dharmas that aid the path within the four noble truths; the reading 「差別品」 tr. "Difference" takes up where the question starts, since what this chapter asks from start to finish is how there is difference within the emptiness of specific marks. Both are recorded without judgement.
Of the explanations of the ancient masters, two houses are worth recording for this chapter, while one house lacks an explanation. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra divides and explains this chapter; its chapter boundary begins from 「差別品第八十四」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-four, Difference" and ends at 「七譬品第八十五」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-five, The Seven Similes", the names used agreeing with the chapter headings of the mother sūtra, and not using 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths". His overall judgement of the place of this chapter says: 「此下是第三明方便得果。四品為二：第一三品明得菩提果，如化一品明得涅槃果。」 tr. "From here on is the third: it clarifies obtaining the fruit by skilful means. The four chapters make two: the first, three chapters, clarifies obtaining the fruit of awakening; the one chapter Like a Conjuration clarifies obtaining the fruit of nirvāṇa." He further divides the inside of this chapter into four, saying: 「初中為四：第一明佛菩薩所行雖同而有漏不滿異之，第二明空雖不二迷悟不二，第三佛雖不得六道為眾生故證得菩提廣說四諦，第四明稟教得悟更能傳化也。」 tr. "The first is in four: the first clarifies that though what the Buddha and the bodhisattva practise is the same, they are distinguished by the outflows and the not-yet-full; the second clarifies that though emptiness is not two, delusion and awakening are not two; the third, that though the Buddha does not obtain the six destinies, for the sake of beings he realises awakening and expounds the four truths at length; the fourth clarifies that receiving the teaching and obtaining awakening, one can further pass on the transformation." —judging this chapter by four divisions, his third division precisely brings out the meaning stated above, ‘the teaching of the four truths is set up because beings do not know’. His explanation of difference within the emptiness of specific marks says: 「俗有差別，道門無差別也」 tr. "the worldly has difference; in the gate of the path there is no difference"; his explanation of the order of teaching the truths says: 「說諦之中初說四諦，次說一乘實諦，亦初說世諦，後說第一義諦」 tr. "within the teaching of the truths, first the four truths are taught, next the real truth of the One Vehicle; also, first worldly truth is taught, afterwards the truth of the highest meaning"—matching the order of the two truths to this chapter's four truths and real truth is Jizang's own judgement, and it takes a different angle from this treatise's judging the four truths by 「藥病相對」 tr. "medicine over against disease"; both are kept. His explanation of the Buddha's answer to the question of truth and knowledge says: 「佛答：泯其境智二見令悟不二，即緣觀俱寂方得道也」 tr. "The Buddha answers: he effaces their two views of object and knowledge, causing them to awaken to non-duality; that is, only when the condition and the contemplation are both quiescent is the path obtained"—explaining ‘not by the truth of suffering does cessation come, not by the knowledge of suffering does cessation come’ by the effacing of the two views of object and knowledge, it brings out this treatise's phrase 「苦諦、苦智和合故生」 tr. "it is born because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together", though in different wording. His explanation of the emptiness of specific marks says: 「論中此是中道空，內外等三空為淺空，畢竟空為深空」 tr. "In the treatise this is the emptiness of the middle way; the three emptinesses, inner, outer, and the rest, are the shallow emptinesses; ultimate emptiness is the deep emptiness"—he himself says that his source is the treatise, yet with 「淺空」 tr. "shallow emptinesses" he replaces this treatise's 「小空」 tr. "small emptinesses", and with 「內外等三空」 tr. "the three emptinesses, inner, outer, and the rest" he replaces this treatise's 「內、外空等」 tr. "inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest"; this is the commentator's summarising wording, not a word-for-word citation, and it is recorded together.
Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises cites this chapter directly in three places, all under the name 「差別品」 tr. "Difference". The first says: 「差別品云：得無所有已，見一切法空，四諦所攝法皆空。若見觀是時，便入菩薩位中。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: having obtained what is without anything existent, he sees that all dharmas are empty; the dharmas contained by the four truths are all empty. If he sees and contemplates, at this time he then enters into the bodhisattva's position."—this section cites the passage of this chapter's sūtra text 「得無所有法已，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。若如是觀，是時，便入菩薩位中」 tr. "having obtained the dharma without anything existent, he sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty. If he contemplates like this, at that time he then enters into the bodhisattva's position", yet omits its phrase 「四聖諦所不攝」 tr. "not contained by the four noble truths"; it is an abridged citation, not word for word. The second says: 「差別品云：菩薩斷無礙道行，佛於解脫道行。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: the bodhisattva severs and practises in the path without obstruction; the Buddha practises in the path of liberation." The third says: 「差別品云：菩薩無礙道中行，諸佛解脫中行。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: the bodhisattva practises within the path without obstruction; the buddhas practise within liberation."—the two places both cite the passage of this chapter 「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction; this is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva; within the path of liberation there is no obscuration of any kind; this is the Buddha", and the wording of the latter citation is closer to the original text of this treatise, while the former citation adds one character, 「斷」 tr. "severs"; this is Junzheng's own restatement. Junzheng cites these two sentences both to discuss the dividing line of severing the defilements between the vajra mind and the ground of the Buddha; the meaning he discusses belongs to that book's own subject, not to what this chapter itself has; his citations are recorded without following his judgements.
Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter. Its extant text stops at the explanation of Chapter 69, "The Great Skilful Means", and is incomplete, far before this chapter, so for this chapter there is no commentary to examine—this is an absence, not that he has nothing to say; it is marked as it really is, and not filled with text from elsewhere. Further, as for the name 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" that this treatise explains, other books also have the same name without being this chapter, such as "Contemplating the Four Truths" of the Middle Treatise and the passages on the four truths spoken in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which both Jizang and Junzheng cite in their books; the people addressed and the principles discussed in them are different, and they are not to be confused.
考據Apparatus
一、科判
本品在《大智度論》釋《大品般若》之次第中屬〈釋餘品〉一段，全在卷九十四，單一單元。卷九十四起於〔T25 0715a15〕，其卷首題所繫者猶是前品——「大智度論釋畢定品第八十三之餘」〔T25 0715a15〕，卷首題下即造署、譯署二行〔T25 0715a18〕〔T25 0715a19〕。本品品題「大智度論釋四諦品第八十四」〔T25 0718b11〕逕接前品〈畢定品第八十三〉之末而起，品首無卷題、無造署譯署（造署譯署已在卷首，不重出）。品身訖於「是菩薩如所願思惟行，為眾生說，使皆度脫。」〔T25 0721b25〕一句迄〔T25 0721b26〕，其下即卷尾題「大智度論卷第九十四」〔T25 0721b27〕；次品品題「大智度論釋七喻品第八十五」〔T25 0721c02〕別起於卷九十五之首。故本品為居卷末·品尾繫卷尾題之型——與品六十二〈同學品〉之居卷中、不涉卷界異，與品四十八〈佛母品〉之跨卷型亦異，而與品五十三〈趣一切智品〉之『居卷末·品尾繫卷尾』同款。
全品純漢字四千三百九十六（機械重計值·與底稿所載相合），為〈釋餘品〉諸品中之中量品。品內結構一【經】一【論】、單一單元：【經】〔T25 0718b12〕、【論】〔T25 0719b13〕。【經】標記有校記，宋、聖二本無此結構標記；【論】標記無校記——標記存否屬底本傳承層，結構計數仍依底本標籤為準。
說者結構：經①以須菩提白佛發端〔T25 0718b12〕，佛告須菩提而答〔T25 0718b13〕，其下問答往復凡二十轉，一問一答相間而無旁人插入——全品現場說者唯佛與須菩提二人，此與品六十二〈同學品〉之帝釋、一比丘、阿難數人交錯者體異。二十轉中有明文標記者十四：「須菩提白佛言」六見（〔T25 0718b12〕〔T25 0718b21〕〔T25 0718c07〕〔T25 0719a06〕〔T25 0719a13〕〔T25 0719a20〕）、「佛告須菩提」三見（〔T25 0718b13〕〔T25 0719a09〕〔T25 0719a23〕）、「佛言」作單起說者標記者五見（〔T25 0718b27〕〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c10〕〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕；另六見之「佛言」二字係「須菩提白佛言」之尾，非說者標記，如實分計）。餘六轉無明文標記：須菩提承前續問者四〔T25 0718c09〕〔T25 0718c10〕〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕之四見中，〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕二處以「世尊！」發語、佛以「佛言」承之，餘二處逕以「世尊！」續問；佛承前開示而但稱「須菩提！」者二〔T25 0718c12〕〔T25 0719a14〕——此皆本經常態文體，非說者不明。
論①以「問曰：」〔T25 0719b13〕起論，「問曰：」八見、「答曰：」八見，逐對相配、無缺答，本目以漢字流逐一定位所得：〔T25 0719b13〕／〔T25 0719b15〕、〔T25 0719c26〕／〔T25 0719c28〕、〔T25 0720a09〕／〔T25 0720a10〕、〔T25 0720b16〕／〔T25 0720b18〕、〔T25 0720c07〕／〔T25 0720c08〕、〔T25 0720c20〕／〔T25 0720c23〕、〔T25 0721a14〕／〔T25 0721a15〕、〔T25 0721b05〕／〔T25 0721b06〕。「有人言」一見〔T25 0720c03〕。「復次」全品四見：一在經段〔T25 0719a16〕（「復次，須菩提！是四聖諦如、不異……」），三在論段〔T25 0720a13〕〔T25 0720c02〕〔T25 0721a02〕，皆為補充義之接續，非問答。
論段另有一類須分繫者：論主自牒經文而擬設之問答——「須菩提復問」四見（〔T25 0719c05〕〔T25 0719c25〕〔T25 0720a14〕〔T25 0721a08〕）、「佛答」五見（〔T25 0720a19〕〔T25 0720c15〕〔T25 0720c29〕〔T25 0721a10〕〔T25 0721b04〕）、「佛可須菩提意，還以所問答須菩提」一見〔T25 0719c10〕、「須菩提問佛」〔T25 0720c29〕與「須菩提問」〔T25 0721b02〕各一見。此皆論主複述經文之敘述體，非論段內另有現場說者，其文與經段本文每有詳略出入（例見第四目），如實分繫、不與經文混為一談。
二、術語考
四聖諦平等。 本品之總綱，亦其命名之所繫。「四聖諦平等」五字之漢字流於本論全書三見，全在本品（〔T25 0719a11〕〔T25 0719a14〕〔T25 0719a16〕），本目逐串重掃所得——此語非本論通用之成語，乃本品所專立。其義經自出兩解：其一，泯八法而平等——「若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等。」〔T25 0719a14〕；其二，四諦即如即實際故平等——「是四聖諦如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故。」〔T25 0719a16〕。而其所歸，經先已標明：「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」〔T25 0719a11〕。論釋第一解作「若無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智，是則平等。」〔T25 0721a01〕，以「八法」收「四諦、四諦智」之數，經文但列而未總其名，「八法」為論主所立之數目語，如實分記。
無礙道·解脫道。 佛與菩薩之分界語。經：「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛。」〔T25 0718b19〕——「無礙道中行」五字之漢字流於本論全書一見，即此處；「解脫道中」四字全書十三見，本品一見〔T25 0718b20〕，餘皆在他品，本目逐串重掃所得。其分界之實，論自釋之：「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。」〔T25 0719b20〕、「若菩薩已入一切種智門，入諸法實相中，以一念相應智慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，斷一切煩惱習，得諸法中自在力，爾時名為佛。」〔T25 0719b22〕——分界不在所行之法，在周遍與否。均正引此二道立義（見第六目）。
向道·得果。 同上義之喻語，經論兩見。經作「譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。」〔T25 0718b18〕；論牒之作「此中佛自說譬喻：『如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。』」〔T25 0719c01〕。「向道得果」之漢字流於本論全書二見，即此經論二處，本目重掃所得——此喻為本品所獨用。
自相空·自性空。 本品兩名並用，且為本品校勘之要目。「自相空」於本品範圍十見（〔T25 0718b22〕二見、〔T25 0718b28〕〔T25 0718b29〕〔T25 0718c12〕〔T25 0719c05〕〔T25 0720a24〕〔T25 0721b05〕二見、〔T25 0721b07〕）、「自性空」六見（〔T25 0718c15〕〔T25 0718c16〕〔T25 0719b04〕〔T25 0719c11〕〔T25 0720a20〕〔T25 0721b12〕），本目逐串重掃所得。二名於本品所指同一——經之問端立「若一切法自相空」〔T25 0718b21〕，其答之究竟語則作「佛言：『自性空。……』」〔T25 0719b04〕，而論釋末段復以「自相空是中空」〔T25 0721b07〕收之。兩名之互用非本品之疏漏，而是諸本互校之交點：〔T25 0718c17〕「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」、〔T25 0719b04〕「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」——底本作「性」處，諸本多作「相」，所成之讀正是所釋經之讀（見第四目）。並錄不判。
四聖諦所攝·四聖諦所不攝。 入菩薩位之判準句。經：「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」〔T25 0719a24〕——「四聖諦所攝」五字於本論全書一見，即此處。其「所不攝」者為何，經未出目，論於後段自補：「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡；餘在四諦。」〔T25 0721a12〕——以虛空、非數緣盡二無為法為四諦所不攝。「非數緣盡」於本論全書六見，本品一見〔T25 0721a13〕。均正引本品此句以立其頂位之說（見第六目）。
性地·頂墮。 菩薩不退之位。經：「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮。用是頂墮故，墮聲聞、辟支佛地。」〔T25 0719a26〕；「性地」於本品範圍七見（〔T25 0718b23〕〔T25 0719a26〕〔T25 0719a28〕〔T25 0721a17〕〔T25 0721a18〕〔T25 0721a20〕〔T25 0721a21〕）。論以聲聞法之四善根為比而釋其名：「性地者，所謂菩薩法位。如聲聞法中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地。」〔T25 0721a18〕，「是法隨順無漏道，故名為性，是中住必望得道」〔T25 0721a20〕——「性」之訓在「隨順無漏」，不在『本有』。吉藏疏同取此比（見第六目）。
黑業·白業·白黑業·無漏業。 四業之目與其訓，全出論段自釋。「黑業」者「是不善業，果報：地獄等受苦惱處。是中眾生，以大苦惱悶極，故名為黑。」〔T25 0720a02〕；白業者「受善業果報處，所謂諸天。以其受樂隨意自在明了，故名為『白業』。」〔T25 0720a04〕；白黑業者「善、不善業受果報處，所謂人、阿修羅等八部。此處亦受樂、亦受苦，故名為『白黑業』。」〔T25 0720a06〕；末一業則「『無漏業』能破不善有漏業，能拔眾生令離善惡果報中。」〔T25 0720a08〕。其所以不名白，論設問而答之：「無漏法雖清淨無垢，以空、無相、無作故無所分別，不得言白。黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白。」〔T25 0720a10〕，「復次，無漏業能滅一切，諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白。」〔T25 0720a13〕——兩重理由各異：前者就相待立論，後者就有觀無觀立論，如實分記。經側但列四業之名而問其得與不得〔T25 0718c09〕，未出四業之訓，四業之訓為論主所獨補。
不動業。 三界受生之業分。論：「善業復有二種：一者、欲界繫，二者、色、無色界繫。色、無色界繫生業名不動，不動業故生色、無色界。」〔T25 0719c16〕——經側作「無動業因緣故，色、無色界中生。」〔T25 0718c02〕，經作「無動」、論作「不動」，同指而用字有異，如實分記。
有餘涅槃。 論釋「以苦滅」一問時所出。論：「愛等諸煩惱滅故，名有餘涅槃。」〔T25 0720c10〕——「有餘涅槃」於本論全書十三見，本品一見。其對舉之「無餘涅槃」亦在本品一見：「將入無餘涅槃，亦知道諦虛誑」〔T25 0720c24〕。
空空三昧·栰喻。 捨道諦之法。論：「以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。」〔T25 0720c25〕——「空空三昧」於本論全書七見，本品一見；「如說栰喻」四字全書一見，即此處。本論於此但以「如說」略指其喻而不重述，喻之本文不在本品，如實誌其略指、不代補。
自相空是中空。 十八空中之位次，論段末目。論：「是中道空。內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」〔T25 0721b06〕，「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。」〔T25 0721b07〕——「自相空是中空」六字之漢字流於本論全書一見，即此處。三層之立（小空／中空／甚深空）為本品所專出。吉藏疏引此段而用字小異（見第六目）。
方便力·無生忍法。 品末收束語。論：「方便力者，菩薩得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦。」〔T25 0721b16〕——經側但云「以方便力故，為是眾生說法。」〔T25 0719b11〕而未釋「方便力」之體，其訓為論主所補：不直說空法而先成就三十二相等善法以引導眾生，故其下接「我今當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生」〔T25 0721b21〕。
五道·六道。 本品最密之校勘交點，亦兩藏用語之歧。「五道」於本品範圍十一見（經段六：〔T25 0718c06〕〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c14〕〔T25 0718c16〕〔T25 0718c22〕〔T25 0719a05〕；論段五：〔T25 0719c24〕〔T25 0719c26〕〔T25 0719c27〕〔T25 0719c28〕〔T25 0720a01〕），「六道」四見，全在論段（〔T25 0720a21〕〔T25 0720a29〕〔T25 0720b07〕〔T25 0720c06〕），本目逐串重掃所得。經段唯用「五道」而無一「六道」；論段則五道、六道並用。又十一「五道」之中，十見帶「六」之異讀（第八目第八、九、十二、十三、二十一、二十四、四十二、四十三、四十五、四十六諸條），唯〔T25 0719c24〕一見無校記；而論段四見之「六道」全無校記——異讀之壓力全在「五」字一側，「六」字一側諸本無爭。所釋經側之數亦自成一局（見第四目）。此『五道／六道』之歧，為阿修羅道計與不計之部派舊異，非本品所特有，如實誌錄不判。
三、譬喻與故事
本品要喻十，皆論主所設或所牒，無泛設；經側唯「向道、得果」一喻。
向道與得果（佛菩薩之分）。 經：「譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。」〔T25 0718b18〕；論牒而申之：「如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。」〔T25 0719c02〕，其下即配：「行者名為菩薩，從初發心乃至金剛三昧；佛已得果，斷一切法中疑，無所不了，故名為佛。」〔T25 0719c03〕——同為聖人而分向、得，故佛菩薩之異不在類而在位。
十四日月與十五日月（周遍之喻）。 論釋「未能周遍」一語，出一極準之喻：「如月十四日、十五日，雖同為月，十四日不能令大海水潮」〔T25 0719b25〕，「月十五日光明盛滿時，能令大海水潮；菩薩成佛亦如是，放大光明，能動十方國土眾生。」〔T25 0719b28〕——喻之力在「潮」字：十四之月非不明，是其明未足以動海。差之一日，而能否動海判然，正配「未能周遍」四字。
無病不須藥·無闇不須燈（設化之由）。 論釋眾生若自知諸法性空則菩薩不須發心：「眾生自知諸法性空，則無所度；譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。」〔T25 0720a22〕——藥與燈皆因病闇而立，非自有其實；菩薩之度生亦爾。
積微塵成山（重縛之喻）。 論分結縛之輕重：「若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度。生貪欲、瞋恚，於是中起諸重業，是為重縛，受此業果報，則難可得度；譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動。」〔T25 0720b08〕——微塵一一至輕，積之成山則不可移；重縛之成，正在其積。
重病先除病，然後莊嚴其身（四諦之次第）。 論釋佛何以但說苦集滅道四法：「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」〔T25 0720b18〕——四諦非佛法之極，是佛法之急；寶物衣服在後而不在無。
以酒發藥（八正道之配）。 論釋道諦之八分：「於八聖道分中為正見，餘七事助成發起，能斷一切法中愛；如以酒發藥。」〔T25 0720b28〕——正見是藥、餘七是酒，酒非藥而藥待酒以行。
病瘡怨賊（觀苦之相）。 論列觀五眾之相：「所謂無常、苦、空、無我，如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊等」〔T25 0720b27〕；品末復以之配菩薩之觀苦：「是人身皆如賊、如怨，無常、空等。」〔T25 0721a26〕——前後兩出，一為聲聞觀門之相，一為菩薩不緣苦諦之所知，如實分記。
牛羊亦應得道（破『但以諦滅』）。 論以歸謬破之：「若以苦諦得道，一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！」〔T25 0720c10〕——苦諦是眾生所共，若但諦即得道，則不修者亦應得；此語極峻，所破者是『境自能度』之執。
燈滅（苦滅之喻）。 論釋滅諦不可求其定處：「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」〔T25 0720c27〕——燈滅非火往他處，苦滅亦非苦遷他所。與其上引經「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為。」〔T25 0720c26〕相承。
栰喻（捨道諦）。 論但以「如說栰喻」〔T25 0720c25〕四字略指，喻之本文不在本品（見第二目）。
四、所釋經文
品名兩造網：四諦／差別（並錄不判）。 本品品名兩造，逐一據校記誌之。其一，四諦品——本論底本品題〔T25 0718b11〕「大智度論釋四諦品第八十四」，其所本即本品經文之核心教說（為眾生說四聖諦、四聖諦平等即涅槃）。其二，差別品——本論宮本作「差別品」（下帳第一條），明本於品次下更繫夾註「有本作差別品」（下帳第二條，該註之本讀原樣為「八十四」下之夾註）。兩名各取本品一義：底本取經文所說之四聖諦，宮本取經文所問之差別之異（「自相空法中，云何有差別之異」〔T25 0718b22〕）；並錄不判。
所釋經品題之鏡像兩讀（本目之眼）。 所釋經 T223 側本品品題〔T08 0411b15〕作「摩訶般若波羅蜜經差別品第八十四」，其註曰「差別【大】，四諦【元】【明】【聖】」——T223 底本作「差別」，元、明、聖三本反作「四諦」。以之對本論側品題註（底本作「四諦」，宮本作「差別」），兩造校記恰成鏡像：本論之底本讀法（四諦）正是 T223 諸異本之讀法，T223 之底本讀法（差別）正是本論宮本之讀法。品題另有夾註一枚〔T08 0411b16〕，其本讀之原樣為夾註「丹本作四諦品」，其註曰「丹…品【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」——丹本夾註所標之名亦作「四諦品」，與本論底本同系；此與本論明本之夾註「有本作差別品」兩兩相對，亦成鏡像。品名兩讀非一藏之內部游移，而是兩藏傳承各自並存之兩讀，如實誌錄，不判孰正。又 T223 之目錄標記標目作「84 差別品」〔T08 0411b15〕，與其顯文品題同系。
石本之品名與 -1 階（兩端證）。 本論品題註〔T25 0718b11〕之本讀原樣為「大智度論【大】，〔－〕【明】，卷第九十五首【石】，石山本無造號譯號，〔大智…四〕十二宇－【聖】，（（大智…四））十二字＝（（大智度經品第八十三四諦品卷九十五））十六字【石】」——石本之品題名亦作「四諦品」，與底本同；而其品次作「第八十三」，較底本少一。此 -1 階於本品範圍另見一端：品末「脫」字註，石本作「脫釋八十三品竟」（下帳第八十四條）——品末『釋某品竟』型夾註與品題兩層互證，皆作「八十三」，非孤證。又卷尾題「四」字之註（下帳第八十六條）其本讀原樣並記聖本作「釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品」，聖本於卷次所繫之品號亦為 -1 階，而宋、元二本之同位夾註作「釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品」，與底本合——-1 階非石本所獨有，聖本於此亦同向，如實分記。
石本卷次雙軌（品題註內之卷端記）。 品題註首記「卷第九十五首【石】」，並記「石山本無造號譯號」——石本以本品品題處為其卷九十五之首，且其卷首不繫造署譯署。底本則於此處無卷界（卷九十四至〔T25 0721b27〕方竟，本品全在其內），其造署譯署在卷九十四之首〔T25 0715a18〕〔T25 0715a19〕——底本／石本卷品雙軌不疊合，如實誌錄不強解。
「法性無作／非作」一名繫次品，不繫本品（三方互證）。 卷九十五首題〔T25 0721c02〕之註，其本讀原樣為「（大智…五）十二字【大】，大智度經論釋第八十四品訖第八十五品【聖】，大智度經第八十四法性無作品【石】」——此註所繫者為卷九十五之首題（即次品〈七喻品第八十五〉之品題），不在本品範圍之內；配以石本 -1 階（石本之「第八十四」即底本之第八十五），石本所稱之「法性無作品」為次品〈七喻品〉之異名。此有兩重旁證：其一，T223 側次品品題註〔T08 0412b17〕作「七譬【大】，七喻【宋】【元】【明】【宮】，法性非作【聖】」——聖本於所釋經側亦以「法性非作」名次品；其二，吉藏疏於次品自陳其異名——「故云七譬品，亦言性空品，亦云法性非作品也。」〔X24n0451 0338a19〕。三方互證，「法性無作／非作」確為次品之異名，非本品之異名，如實誌錄。本品確定之異名唯「四諦品」「差別品」二造。
T223 目錄品序之重出與跳號（誌錄不判）。 所釋經 T223 側本品之目錄品序標作「85」而顯文標「84 差別品」〔T08 0411b15〕。其前後五品之目錄品序依底本出現序為：「82 淨土品」標「82」〔T08 0407b09〕、「83 畢定品」標「84」〔T08 0409b13〕、「84 差別品」標「85」〔T08 0411b15〕、「85 七譬品」標「85」〔T08 0412b17〕、「86 平等品」標「87」〔T08 0413c10〕、「87 如化品」標「87」〔T08 0415b27〕——本品前後同時見『+1 偏移』『與前條重出』『跳號』三款瑕疵。此屬 CBETA 標目層之記，非顯文品序之歧（品序以漢字數字「八十三」「八十四」「八十五」為準，無歧義），承既誌之常設體例，逐品誌錄不作異常。
T223 側品界與卷界（與本論側異）。 所釋經側本品起〔T08 0411b15〕、訖〔T08 0412b16〕，次品〈七譬品第八十五〉品題〔T08 0412b17〕緊接其後，二品同在所釋經卷第二十六之內，不涉卷界；本論側則本品居卷九十四之末、次品別起於卷九十五之首（見第一目）——兩傳承於此品之卷品分劃不合，如實誌錄。
全量牒經對讀（兩側對勘·異文二十八處·逐處誌其校記之有無）。 本論經①〔T25 0718b12–0719b12〕與所釋經〈差別品〉〔T08 0411b17–0412b16〕逐字對讀，其異二十八處，依底本出現序列之：
- 而有得、向之異——本論作「是二人俱為聖人。」〔T25 0718b18〕，T223 多六字作「是二人俱為聖人，而有得、向之異。」〔T08 0411b24〕。兩造於此皆有校記：本論側「聖人【大】｜聖人而有得向之異【宋】【元】【明】【宮】｜聖人而有得向亦肴【聖】｜賢聖而有得向之異【石】」（下帳第五條）——宋、元、明、宮四本所成之讀正是 T223 底本之讀；T223 側則作「而有得向之異【大】，〔－〕【聖】」〔T08 0411b24〕與「聖人【大】，賢聖【宮】」〔T08 0411b24〕——聖本無此六字，正與本論底本合，而 T223 宮本之「賢聖」正與本論石本之「賢聖」合。四方交錯，鏡像最全之一條。
- 若——本論作「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行」〔T25 0718b19〕，T223 作「若菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行」〔T08 0411b25〕。T223 側有註「若【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」——元、明、聖三本無「若」字，正與本論底本合；本論側此處無校記。
- 是名菩薩摩訶薩／是名菩薩——本論作「是名菩薩摩訶薩」〔T25 0718b20〕，T223 作「是名菩薩」〔T08 0411b26〕。T223 側有註「薩【大】，薩摩訶薩【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」——五本所成之讀正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 是為佛／是名為佛——本論作「是為佛」〔T25 0718b21〕，T223 作「是名為佛」〔T08 0411b27〕。T223 側有註「名【大】，〔－〕【元】【聖】」——元、聖二本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 八地人／八人地——本論作「是八地人」〔T25 0718b23〕，T223 作「是八人地」〔T08 0411b29〕。兩造皆有校記：本論側「地人【大】｜人地【元】【明】【石】」（下帳第六條），T223 側「人地【大】，地人【宋】【宮】，人地人【元】【明】【聖】」——鏡像。
- 阿羅呵／阿羅訶——本論作「阿羅呵」〔T25 0718b25〕，T223 作「阿羅訶」〔T08 0411c02〕。兩造於此皆無校記，屬傳承用字之異，如實誌錄，不以一造之讀判另一造。
- 若有——本論作「眾生不知是諸法自相空」〔T25 0718b29〕，T223 作「若有眾生不知是諸法自相空」〔T08 0411c06〕。T223 側有註「若有【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」——三本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 檀波羅蜜／檀那波羅蜜——本論作「是菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜乃至十八不共法時」〔T25 0718c03〕，T223 作「行檀那波羅蜜」〔T08 0411c10〕。T223 側有註「那【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」——三本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。兩藏之譯名習慣各自成系，非本品一處之偶異（同品六十二既誌之例）。
- 入——本論作「盡受行是助道法；如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T25 0718c04〕，T223 作「入如金剛三昧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T08 0411c11〕。T223 側有註「入【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」——四本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 得——本論作「得已，饒益眾生」〔T25 0718c06〕，T223 側「得」字有註「得【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】」；本論側無校記。
- 常／當——本論作「是利常不失故」〔T25 0718c06〕，T223 作「是利當不失故」〔T08 0411c13〕。T223 側有註「當【大】，常【宮】【聖】」——宮、聖二本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 五道／六道（本目最不對稱之一條）——本論作「得五道生死不？」〔T25 0718c08〕，T223 作「得六道生死不？」〔T08 0411c15〕。本論側此處為星號條「五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊」（下帳第九條），五本作「六」；T223 側此處則全無校記，底本逕作「六」。一造有五本之異讀而另一造無爭，如實誌錄此一單向。
- 須菩提言——本論作「佛言：『不得也！須菩提！』『世尊！得業若黑……』」〔T25 0718c08〕，T223 於問端多「須菩提言」四字〔T08 0411c15〕。T223 側僅其中「言」字有註「言【大】，〔－〕【聖】」，校記所涵者小於兩造之異，如實分記。
- 若黑白——本論作「得業若黑、若白、若不黑不白不？」〔T25 0718c09〕，T223 多三字作「若黑、若白、若黑白、若不黑不白不？」〔T08 0411c16〕。本論側有註「若白【大】｜若白若黑白【聖】【石】」（下帳第十條）——聖、石二本所成之讀正是 T223 底本之讀；T223 側無校記。
- 是——本論作「云何說是地獄、餓鬼」〔T25 0718c10〕，本論側有註「是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」（下帳第十一條）；T223 側同位亦有註「是【大】，〔－〕【聖】」〔T08 0411c18〕——兩造皆有校記而所刪者同一字，惟其見證不同（本論四本、T223 聖本）。
- 自性空／自相空——本論作「是菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空」〔T25 0718c16〕，T223 作「聞諸法自相空」〔T08 0411c24〕。本論側有註「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」（下帳第十四條）——四本正與 T223 底本合；T223 側無校記。
- 凡夫人／凡人——本論作「諸法不爾如凡夫人所著」〔T25 0718c18〕，T223 作「如凡人所著」〔T08 0411c25〕。本論側有註「夫【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」（下帳第十五條）——四本正與 T223 底本合；T223 側無校記。
- 有色／有受——本論作「無色色相，無受想行識受想行識相」〔T25 0718c20〕，T223 作「無色有色相，無受想行識有受想行識相」〔T08 0411c27〕。兩造皆有校記：本論側「色【大】｜有色【元】【明】」（下帳第十七條）與「受【大】｜有受【元】【明】」（下帳第十九條），T223 側「有【大】＊，〔－〕【宮】【聖】＊」〔T08 0411c27〕及其星號條〔T08 0411c28〕——鏡像。
- 苦、苦集／苦、集——本論作「為眾生說四聖諦——苦、苦集、苦滅、苦滅道」〔T25 0719a01〕，T223 作「苦、集、苦滅、苦滅道」〔T08 0412a05〕。兩造皆有校記：本論側「苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】【石】」（下帳第二十二條），T223 側「苦【大】，苦苦【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」——鏡像。
- 得度（二處）——本論作「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度；乃至非道聖諦得度，亦非道智得度。」〔T25 0719a09〕，T223 作「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智。乃至非道聖諦得度，亦非道智。」〔T08 0412a12〕。兩造皆有校記：本論側「得度【大】｜〔－〕【宮】【聖】【石】」與「得度【大】｜〔－〕【石】」（下帳第二十五、二十六條），T223 側「智【大】＊，智得度【元】【明】＊」〔T08 0412a13〕及其星號條〔T08 0412a14〕——鏡像。
- 平等相（前後兩處交錯）——本論兩處皆作「平等」：「何等是四聖諦平等？」〔T25 0719a14〕、「是名四聖諦平等。」〔T25 0719a16〕；T223 兩處皆作「平等相」〔T08 0412a19〕前後。兩造之校記恰分繫前後：本論側「須【大】｜相須【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」（下帳第二十九條）——六本於「平等」下增「相」字，所成之讀正是 T223 底本之讀；T223 側「相【大】，〔－〕【聖】」〔T08 0412a19〕——聖本無「相」，所成之讀正是本論底本之讀。兩造各校一處而交錯成鏡，如實分記。
- 時——本論作「行般若波羅蜜時，如通達實諦故」〔T25 0719a21〕，T223 無「時」字〔T08 0412a24〕。兩造於此皆無校記。
- 故——本論作「如通達實諦故，不墮聲聞、辟支佛地」〔T25 0719a21〕，本論側有註「故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」（下帳第三十條）；T223 側同位有「故」而無校記。
- 性地／性——本論作「是菩薩住性地中，能生四禪」〔T25 0719a28〕，T223 作「是菩薩住性中，能生四禪」〔T08 0412b02〕。T223 側有註「性【大】，性地【宋】【元】【明】【聖】」——四本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
- 何等空／何等空觀——本論作「『世尊！何等空？』」〔T25 0719b04〕，T223 作「『世尊！何等空觀？』」〔T08 0412b08〕。兩造於此皆無校記。
- 自性空／自相空（答語）——本論作「佛言：『自性空。……』」〔T25 0719b04〕，T223 作「佛言：『自相空。……』」〔T08 0412b08〕。本論側有註「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」（下帳第三十二條）——六本全與 T223 底本合，本論底本於此為孤讀；T223 側無校記。此條與上「自性空／自相空」一條同向，本論底本之「性」字系為其一貫讀法，如實誌錄。
- 為是眾生／為眾生——本論作「以方便力故，為是眾生說法。」〔T25 0719b11〕，T223 作「以方便力故為眾生說法。」〔T08 0412b16〕。T223 側「為」字有註「為【大】，為是【宮】」——宮本正與本論底本合；本論側無校記。
對照組（七串·兩藏各自見數誠實記·對位唯一）。 「若一切法自相空，自相空法中，云何有差別之異」〔T25 0718b21〕／〔T08 0411b28〕；「無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」〔T25 0718b28〕／〔T08 0411c05〕；「四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空」〔T25 0719a25〕／〔T08 0412b01〕；「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮」〔T25 0719a26〕／〔T08 0412b02〕；「但順阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，觀諸法如實相」〔T25 0719b02〕／〔T08 0412b06〕；「無性相是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T25 0719b07〕／〔T08 0412b11〕；「但眾生不知不見諸法如實相」〔T25 0719b10〕／〔T08 0412b14〕。以上七串之漢字流，於 T25n1509 全論與 T08n0223 全經各唯一見（本目逐串於兩藏底本以標記容錯法獨立重掃，非轉抄），對位唯一、無他品可淆。另誌兩串之見數不為一者，以免以估值充數：「是四聖諦平等」於本論本品內三見〔T25 0719a11〕〔T25 0719a14〕〔T25 0719a16〕、於全論亦僅此三見；「四諦」二字於本品經論正文（含品題行）十五見、「四聖諦」十一見，兩名並用而分佈有別——經段唯用「四聖諦」，論段前段承經亦用「四聖諦」，其後則多用「四諦」，如實分記。判為「同品異名」（品身逐字幾近同文，品名兩造之異見上）。本論【論】層為論體之結構性擴增，所釋經無此層，非異文。
五、般若義眼
本品之眼，在一「差別」與一「平等」如何並立——自相空中既無眾生、無業、無果報，何以仍說地獄乃至諸佛之異？而四聖諦既是佛所自說之教，何以又說「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」？其義可約為五重。
其一，佛與菩薩之異，不在所行之法，在周遍與否。經開卷即答須菩提之問曰「菩薩法亦是佛法」〔T25 0718b14〕，其異唯在「佛以一念相應慧知一切法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」〔T25 0718b16〕。論申其實：「色等諸法行處是同，但智慧利鈍有異。」〔T25 0719b19〕，「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。」〔T25 0719b20〕。此所以立十四日、十五日之月喻——非明與不明之別，是能動海與不能動海之別。經又以「無礙道中行」與「解脫道中無一切闇蔽」〔T25 0718b20〕分之：菩薩在斷惑之道上行，佛則已在惑斷之後。
其二，差別之所以立，正因眾生不知空。經之問最峻：「如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得！」〔T25 0718b26〕；佛之答不諱其峻——「如是！如是！如汝所言，自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報。」〔T25 0718b27〕，而後轉出一句：「須菩提！眾生不知是諸法自相空，是眾生作業因緣」〔T25 0718b29〕。差別非在法上，在不知法者之心上。論以一反證推至極處：若眾生自知諸法性空，則「菩薩不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提意，亦不於六道中拔出眾生」〔T25 0720a20〕——「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。」〔T25 0720a22〕。整部菩薩道之所以有，只因這一個「不知」。
其三，佛何以但說四諦，不說十八不共法。論以極平實之語答之：「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。」〔T25 0720b18〕，「如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」〔T25 0720b19〕。四諦之目，論逐一落到實處：苦是「受五受眾身是一切苦本，性即是苦」〔T25 0720b21〕；集是「愛等諸煩惱」〔T25 0720b23〕；滅是「若人欲捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷苦則滅」〔T25 0720b25〕；道是八正道之「於八聖道分中為正見，餘七事助成發起，能斷一切法中愛」〔T25 0720b28〕。而四諦之所以能總攝，經自說其故：「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中，用是助道善法故，分別有三寶。」〔T25 0719a03〕——四諦不是佛法之一分，是佛法之總收處；三寶之所以分立，亦由此出。
其四，『以諦得度』與『以智得度』皆不成，而諦智不可離。經之答極斬截：「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度」〔T25 0719a09〕。論恐人以此問為粗，先為分疏：此問實是「見苦等四諦體故滅？為用智故滅？」〔T25 0720c09〕。而後兩邊俱破——若但以諦，則「一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！」〔T25 0720c11〕（苦是眾生所共）；若但以智，則「離苦則無智」〔T25 0720c12〕（無所觀之境，智無從立）。故收之曰：「苦諦、苦智和合故生」〔T25 0720c13〕。其所以並破，論更進一層：「是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性故不名為實，不實故云何能滅？」〔T25 0720c18〕。而後設一極要之難：苦集二諦可說虛誑，道諦無漏、滅諦無為，何以亦虛誑？論答之曰「將入無餘涅槃，亦知道諦虛誑，以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。」〔T25 0720c24〕，滅諦則「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為。」〔T25 0720c26〕，「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」〔T25 0720c27〕——四諦之虛妄不是否定四諦，是不許在四諦上再立一個可執之實。
其五，入菩薩位之關，在「空亦空」而不另立一觀。經出其相：「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」〔T25 0719a24〕。論設問：何以不說「空亦空觀」而入菩薩位？其答極簡：「若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。」〔T25 0721a15〕——「一切空」一語若真說到底，「空亦空」已在其中，不待另立。而所謂觀空之空，經末指其名曰「自性空」〔T25 0719b04〕；論則配其位：「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」〔T25 0721b06〕，其所以取中，在「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。」〔T25 0721b07〕——自相空有可破之理在，故行人破時心不致沉沒；沉沒則入不了深空。品末歸於方便：眾生不能知見如實相，故菩薩「得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦」〔T25 0721b16〕之後，猶不直說空法，而「當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生」〔T25 0721b21〕——因為「若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄！」〔T25 0721b20〕。全品從差別問起，至此仍落回差別：第一義上無差別，而說法之處不得不有差別；此即本品兩名（四諦／差別）之所以兩立。
六、諸家異釋
《大智度論》本無逐文全疏之傳統，古德引釋率屬據實偏倚。本品古德覆讀二家：釋所釋經之吉藏疏存完整專章；釋本論之慧影疏於本品闕釋（其現存文本遠止於本品之前，見下）；均正《大乘四論玄義》三處真引本品，為近數品中少見之實例；天台系智顗、湛然諸書零命中。此目誌錄其所疏所引與本品之對應，不判各家詮釋高下。
吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451）。 於所釋經〈差別品〉之逐文疏，起「差別品第八十四」〔X24n0451 0337b10〕，迄〔X24n0451 0338a13〕，次品「七譬品第八十五」〔X24n0451 0338a14〕起前，覆本品經全篇（卷首總目亦列「差別品第八十四」，在〔X24n0451 0195c16〕，屬目次層，不與正文科判混計）。其可誌者六。
其一，大科與本品之位——「此下是第三明方便得果。四品為二：第一三品明得菩提果，如化一品明得涅槃果。」〔X24n0451 0337b11〕：吉藏以本品與其後〈七譬〉〈平等〉〈如化〉四品合為一段，本品居其首。其下更立本品之四分科：「初中為四：第一明佛菩薩所行雖同而有漏不滿異之」〔X24n0451 0337b15〕，「第三佛雖不得六道為眾生故證得菩提廣說四諦，第四明稟教得悟更能傳化也。」〔X24n0451 0337b16〕——四分之目與本品經文之四番問答相值。
其二，佛菩薩之異——「答：所行是同，但當現為異也。」〔X24n0451 0337b21〕：吉藏以『現』立異，本論則以「周遍」「入一切門」立異〔T25 0719b20〕，二家所重不同，並錄不判。
其三，差別與平等之收——「俗有差別，道門無差別也。」〔X24n0451 0337c05〕：以二諦收本品之問答。本論於此但云「以眾生實不知諸法自性空故，不得脫五道生死」〔T25 0718c15〕，未以二諦之名分判，此為吉藏所自出之框架，如實分記。
其四，所據經本作「六道」——「白佛得菩提已得六道不者，此就以難所說也。」〔X24n0451 0337c07〕，其下復云「是故今問得菩提時見六道不？」〔X24n0451 0337c08〕：吉藏所據之經本此處作「六道」，與 T223 底本合，而與本論底本之「五道」異（見第四目）——古德疏文可為經本讀法之旁證，誌錄不判。
其五，四諦之次第與泯境智——「說諦之中初說四諦，次說一乘實諦，亦初說世諦，後說第一義諦。」〔X24n0451 0337c15〕，「佛答：泯其境智二見令悟不二，即緣觀俱寂方得道也。」〔X24n0451 0337c22〕——以『泯境智二見』釋「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度」，與本論之「苦諦、苦智和合故生」〔T25 0720c13〕同破而立語各異：本論破其偏取，吉藏破其二見，如實分記。吉藏又釋「所攝／所不攝」曰「四聖諦攝不攝者，三諦攝有為盡滅諦，但攝數緣故攝餘二也。」〔X24n0451 0338a05〕——以「數緣盡」之外者為所不攝，與本論「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡」〔T25 0721a12〕同指。
其六，性地與中道空之引論——「住是性地不墮頂者，論云菩菩薩位名性地也。」〔X24n0451 0338a07〕（「菩菩薩」為底本重文，原樣錄），「如小乘四善根名性地，住四善根必得正位，菩薩住性地必作佛」〔X24n0451 0338a08〕——與本論「如聲聞法中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地」〔T25 0721a18〕同比。又引本論中道空一段作「下明菩薩用自相空者，論中此是中道空，內外等三空為淺空，畢竟空為深空。」〔X24n0451 0338a10〕，「此是中道空，有理破故心不沒也。」〔X24n0451 0338a11〕——本論作「小空」「甚深空」，吉藏作「淺空」「深空」；本論作「內、外空等」，吉藏作「內外等三空」，用字與所計之數皆有小異，並錄不判。
慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791）·本品闕釋（如實誌）。 慧影疏為釋本論之唯一古疏，僅殘卷存世，其現存文本止於「釋大方便品第六十九(不完)」一章、終於〔X46n0791 0917b12〕——本品（第八十四）遠在其現存終點之後。本目於全檔獨立回搜「差別品」「四諦品」「四諦所攝」「得無所有」「無礙道中行」五串，皆零命中——此屬闕釋（文本不存），非『無涉』，如實區辨誌錄。
均正《大乘四論玄義》（X46n0784）·三處真引（皆繫「差別品」名下）。 均正於本品有三處逐字引用，為近數品中少見之實例，逐條誌之。
其一，引本品入菩薩位一段以定「頂」之位——「差別品云：得無所有已，見一切法空，四諦所攝法皆空。」〔X46n0784 0566a06〕，「若見觀是時，便入菩薩位中。是為菩薩位性地中，不從墮頂。」〔X46n0784 0566a07〕——與本論「得無所有法已，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」〔T25 0719a24〕、「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮。」〔T25 0719a26〕相值。均正作「四諦所攝法皆空」而略去「所不攝」一支，又作「不從墮頂」而本論作「不從頂墮」，屬節引與字序之異，如實分記。其引之用意在自立其說：「觀經文意，應是六地終心為頂也。」〔X46n0784 0566a10〕——此為均正自身之位次判，本論無此配。
其二、其三，引本品無礙／解脫二道以論斷惑——「差別品云：菩薩斷無礙道行，佛於解脫道行。」〔X46n0784 0571a19〕，「差別品云：菩薩無礙道中行，諸佛解脫中行。」〔X46n0784 0572c05〕——皆與本論「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛。」〔T25 0718b19〕相值。二引同句而用字不一：前引作「斷無礙道行」（增「斷」字，屬均正複述之語），後引作「無礙道中行」（較貼近本論原文），如實分記。二引皆用以處理『金剛心斷惑盡否』之諍：「開善等諸師傳述金心斷或未盡，唯佛菩提方盡。」〔X46n0784 0572c04〕——引本品為其斷惑次第之經證，屬均正自身所承之論諍，本論於此無涉，誌錄不判。
同名異書之辨（「四諦品」四處偽陽性·逐條區辨）。 「四諦品」三字於均正書中另有四見，皆非本品，本目逐條核其場景（誰、對誰、依何理）後區辨如下：〔X46n0784 0576a07〕「引大經四諦品云：佛告迦葉」——對告者作「迦葉」而本品經段對告者為須菩提，且「大經」為注疏慣稱之《大般涅槃經》，屬彼經之四諦教說；〔X46n0784 0577a23〕「中論？四諦品云：佛依二諦說法」、〔X46n0784 0583c10〕「又四諦品云：諸法雖無生，而有二諦」、〔X46n0784 0583c18〕同句之再引——三處所涉皆「二諦」義，指《中論》〈觀四諦品〉（第二十四品），非本品。吉藏書中「四諦品」亦一見〔X24n0451 0317a06〕「如中論？四諦品破性有業無得也」，同屬《中論》，非本品。詞面命中不等於引本品，逐條誌其區辨，未誤登。
智顗《摩訶止觀》（T46n1911）·《法華玄義》（T33n1716）·湛然《法華玄義釋籤》（T33n1717）·《止觀輔行傳弘決》（T46n1912）·零命中（如實誌）。 本目於四檔全檔獨立回搜「差別品」「四諦品」「四聖諦平等」「無礙道中行」「自相空是中空」「向道得果」諸串。其中「差別品」四檔皆零命中。另有四處詞面命中，逐條核對語境後皆判非引本品：〔T46n1911 0052c05〕「雖是大乘無量四諦所攝，猶是思議之境」——天台四教四諦之自用語，未點名經論；〔T33n1717 0852a07〕「約此四諦，為是何教四諦所攝？」——同屬四教判語；〔T33n1716 0691c04〕「昔第九無礙道中行，名菩薩。伏道不斷，未出三界，故名因位……」及〔T33n1716 0691c13〕同段之再用——天台自身「第九無礙道」之位次語，與本品「無礙道中行」字同而所指異；〔T33n1717 0850b22〕「又如《思益．四諦品》中云：『四諦者，謂世間、世間集、世間滅、世間滅道。』」——所引為《思益經》〈四諦品〉，同名異書，非引本品。本品於天台諸書無明稱之引，候補不登，如實誌錄負結果。
七、互讀與承衍
本品之義脈，前後相承者有四，皆此目所誌，不代定讀。
其一，『菩薩法即佛法』之品次承衍（古德所繫·非論主自陳）。 本品開卷之問「若是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法？」〔T25 0718b12〕，其「是諸法」三字指前品所說。吉藏疏於此明繫前品：「上品明一切菩薩法是菩提，佛令菩薩如佛行六度乃至一切種智，是故今問。」〔X24n0451 0337b19〕——所指即前品〈畢定品第八十三〉。本論本品範圍內無前指前品之明文（本目於本品逐字查「畢定」零命中），故此繫屬吉藏之科，非論主自陳，如實分記。
其二，『差別—七喻—平等—如化』之四品一段（吉藏所立·並帶三德配）。 吉藏以本品與其後三品合為「方便得果」一段（見第六目）；其於〈如化品第八十七〉疏首復引他家之配：「有人言：差別品明菩提即智果，謂般若也」〔X24n0451 0339b20〕——以本品配菩提智果、七譬品配解脫果、平等品配法身果。吉藏於此配自下一語「今明難作如此義，亦復可然。」〔X24n0451 0339b23〕而未全取。本論無此三德之配，屬吉藏書所錄之他家義，誌其關聯不代定讀。
其三，吉藏於後品回指本品（硬鏈·逐字）。 吉藏疏〈平等品第八十六〉時逕引本品之文為據：「佛上差別品中，何得言菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空也」〔X24n0451 0339a14〕——所引即本品經文「是菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空，發意求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」〔T25 0718c16〕。此為古德以本品之文難次品之文，兩品之義脈由此一句相連，誌其承。又可誌者：吉藏此處引作「自性空」，與本論底本合而與其所疏之 T223 底本「自相空」異（見第四目），古德引文之讀法與其所疏之本不必一致，如實分記。
其四，寶庫掛鏈（穩定徵引·軟引）。 本品「四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」之判、「自相空法中，云何有差別之異」之問與其「眾生不知」之答、四業之目與無漏業「非白非黑」之訓、「苦滅如燈滅」之喻、與「自相空是中空」之十八空位次，為後世論二諦相即、論四諦與空義相攝之所本，落穩定徵引〔T25n1509 四諦品·卷九十四〕；諸帙引本論處尚未定稿，故軟引，俟其逐字核存。此屬般若義下貫教門之承衍，誌錄不判。
八、校本與版本說明
本品底本為《大智度論》卷九十四〔T25 0718b11–0721b27〕（品身正文自品題〔T25 0718b11〕起，終於「使皆度脫」句迄〔T25 0721b26〕；卷尾題「大智度論卷第九十四」〔T25 0721b27〕繫於品尾之後，次品品題〔T25 0721c02〕別起於卷九十五之首）；所釋經校本為《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》〈差別品〉〔T08 0411b15–0412b16〕；古德疏校本為吉藏《大品經義疏》（X24n0451，覆所釋經〔X24n0451 0337b10–0338a13〕）；慧影《大智度論疏》（X46n0791）於本品闕釋，均正《大乘四論玄義》（X46n0784）三處真引，天台四書零命中（皆見第六目）。異讀校記依大正校勘，涉大正底本與宋、元、明、宮、聖、石（石山寺本）諸本之異——本品八十六條之帳內未見麗、磧、CBETA 校訂層等現代校勘條，亦未見聖乙本入帳；所涉見證唯【大】【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】七造。
品題註（品名兩造、石本 -1 階與石本卷端記之底據·專列·不入八十六條之帳）。 品題〔T25 0718b11〕之註（底本注碼 0718016）底本全文原樣：「大智度論【大】，〔－〕【明】，卷第九十五首【石】，石山本無造號譯號，〔大智…四〕十二宇－【聖】，（（大智…四））十二字＝（（大智度經品第八十三四諦品卷九十五））十六字【石】」——此即石本 -1 階、石本卷端記與石本無造譯署之底據（析論見第四目）。此註之錨為點錨型（無起訖對），故不入八十六條之帳，另列於此，並顯式標出。品題其餘二註（品名「四諦品／差別品」與品次「八十四」）則為起訖錨型，入帳，即下帳第一、二條。
星號九枚·皆品內自共用（專列）。 本品範圍內星號錨九枚，本目逐枚解其校勘條之對應目標並定位所屬品，九枚之目標皆在本品範圍之內，無一跨品：
- 繫「五」字者七枚——〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c22〕〔T25 0719a05〕〔T25 0719c26〕〔T25 0719c27〕〔T25 0719c28〕〔T25 0720a01〕，對應注皆指向〔T25 0718c06〕之註（下帳第八條），其底本原樣為「五【大】＊，六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊」——即『五道／六道』之異讀於本品七處以星號機制掛回單一定義處（見第二目）。
- 繫「相」字者一枚——〔T25 0718c20〕，對應注指向同行之註（下帳第十六條），底本原樣「相【大】＊，想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊」。此枚與其目標同在〔T25 0718c20〕一行，同行兩條（一為本註、一為星號），下帳第十六、十八條即此。
- 繫「妄」字者一枚——〔T25 0721a06〕，對應注指向〔T25 0720c18〕之註（下帳第六十六條），底本原樣「妄【大】＊，誑【元】【明】＊」——此枚跨頁（0721 指回 0720）而不跨品。
星號目標之註文於底本帶「＊」記，本目依底本原樣保留（下帳第八、九、十六、十八、二十一、二十四、四十二、四十三、四十五、四十六、六十六、七十四條）。
校記附註（夾註）三條·原樣保留（專列）。 本品校記之內含底本夾註三處，底本之括注子語，本目原樣保留不刪：其一，〔T25 0718b11〕「八十四【大】｜八十四（有本作差別品）【明】｜八十四品【宮】」（下帳第二條）——明本夾註即品名兩造之一端；其二，〔T25 0721b26〕「脫【大】｜脫釋八十三品竟【石】」（下帳第八十四條）——括注內即石本之品末收束記，為 -1 階之第二端證；其三，〔T25 0721b27〕「四【大】｜四（釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品）【宋】【元】｜四釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品【聖】」（下帳第八十六條）——宋、元二本之夾註記卷九十四所釋之品界（自品八十三之下至品八十四），聖本之同位夾註則作「第八十二品下訖第八十三品」，聖本於此亦為 -1 階（見第四目）。
次品卷首題註（不在本品範圍·專列以正繫屬）。 卷九十五首題〔T25 0721c02〕之註（底本注碼 0721016）底本全文原樣：「（大智…五）十二字【大】，大智度經論釋第八十四品訖第八十五品【聖】，大智度經第八十四法性無作品【石】，釋乃至八十五八字三本俱在經前行」——此註繫於次品〈七喻品第八十五〉之卷首題，不在本品範圍，不入本品之帳；其石本讀法所出之「法性無作品」為次品之異名，非本品之異名（三方互證見第四目）。本目於此專列，以免繫屬之誤。
校勘總帳（八十六條全量對帳·底本原樣）。 下依底本出現序全量列之，內含星號九條，隨條標明其對應注目標。異本讀法並列保存，正文仍從現行底本讀法：
校記條（八十六·底本出現序·星號隨條標明）
- 〔T25 0718b11〕四諦品【大】｜差別品【宮】（品名兩造之一·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0718b11〕八十四【大】｜八十四（有本作差別品）【明】｜八十四品【宮】（校記夾註〔傍註〕原樣保留·明本夾註為品名兩造之一端）
- 〔T25 0718b12〕【經】【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【聖】（結構標記存否註·宋聖二本無此標記）
- 〔T25 0718b15〕種【大】｜種智【石】
- 〔T25 0718b19〕聖人【大】｜聖人而有得向之異【宋】【元】【明】【宮】｜聖人而有得向亦肴【聖】｜賢聖而有得向之異【石】（四本所成之讀正是所釋經底本之讀·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0718b24〕地人【大】｜人地【元】【明】【石】（與所釋經側校記成鏡像·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0718b26〕佛陀【大】｜佛陀地【聖】
- 〔T25 0718c06〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號目標條·本品七枚星號皆掛此·見上專列）
- 〔T25 0718c08〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註·所釋經底本此處逕作「六」而無校記·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0718c09〕若白【大】｜若白若黑白【聖】【石】（聖石二本所成之讀正是所釋經底本之讀）
- 〔T25 0718c10〕是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0718c14〕五道往來【大】｜往來六道【元】【明】【聖】【石】｜六道往來【宋】【宮】
- 〔T25 0718c16〕五【大】｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0718c17〕性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】（四本正與所釋經底本合）
- 〔T25 0718c18〕夫【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】（四本正與所釋經底本合）
- 〔T25 0718c20〕相【大】＊｜想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊（星號目標條·本行另有一枚星號掛此）
- 〔T25 0718c20〕色【大】｜有色【元】【明】（元明所成之讀正是所釋經底本之讀）
- 〔T25 0718c20〕相【大】＊｜想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊（星號·共用同行〔T25 0718c20〕之註）
- 〔T25 0718c20〕受【大】｜有受【元】【明】（元明所成之讀正是所釋經底本之讀）
- 〔T25 0718c21〕相【大】｜想【元】【明】【石】
- 〔T25 0718c22〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註）
- 〔T25 0719a02〕苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】【石】（與所釋經側校記成鏡像·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0719a04〕故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0719a05〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註）
- 〔T25 0719a10〕得度【大】｜〔－〕【宮】【聖】【石】（與所釋經側校記成鏡像·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0719a10〕得度【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719a13〕滅【大】｜智滅【石】
- 〔T25 0719a13〕道【大】｜智道【石】
- 〔T25 0719a14〕須【大】｜相須【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】（六本於「平等」下增「相」字·所成之讀正是所釋經底本之讀·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0719a22〕故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】
- 〔T25 0719b04〕佛【大】｜觀佛【石】
- 〔T25 0719b04〕性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】（六本全與所釋經底本合·本論底本於此為孤讀·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0719b16〕是【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719b21〕能【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719b21〕門【大】｜智門【石】
- 〔T25 0719b22〕已【大】｜以【石】
- 〔T25 0719c02〕雖【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】｜報【石】
- 〔T25 0719c04〕斷【大】｜報斷【石】
- 〔T25 0719c14〕業【大】｜諸業【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0719c17〕生【大】｜少少生【石】
- 〔T25 0719c26〕是【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719c26〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註）
- 〔T25 0719c27〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註）
- 〔T25 0719c28〕墮【大】｜隨【宋】【宮】
- 〔T25 0719c28〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註）
- 〔T25 0720a01〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0718c06〕之註·本品七枚「五」字星號之末一枚）
- 〔T25 0720a02〕不【大】｜不得【明】
- 〔T25 0720a06〕處【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720a07〕為【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720a08〕能【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720a12〕是【大】｜黑是【聖】
- 〔T25 0720a13〕觀【大】｜觀觀【宋】【元】【明】【明】【聖】【石】（本讀之見證序原樣保留·【明】重出係底本原態）
- 〔T25 0720a14〕無【大】｜無黑【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0720a18〕修羅【大】｜羅漢【石】
- 〔T25 0720b05〕望【大】｜妄【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b07〕人【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b08〕中【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b08〕眾生法【大】｜眾生【元】【明】｜憶【石】
- 〔T25 0720b11〕得【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕滅【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕道【大】｜滅道【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0720c05〕法【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c17〕不用【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720c18〕緣【大】｜因緣【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】
- 〔T25 0720c18〕妄【大】＊｜誑【元】【明】＊（星號目標條·〔T25 0721a06〕之星號掛此·跨頁不跨品）
- 〔T25 0720c19〕云【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕虛【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕又【大】｜人【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720c26〕定法【大】｜無為滅【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721a03〕住【大】｜位【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0721a06〕天【大】｜大【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0721a06〕妄【大】＊｜誑【元】【明】＊（星號·共用〔T25 0720c18〕之註）
- 〔T25 0721a10〕地【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721a23〕地【大】｜定【明】
- 〔T25 0721a24〕苦【大】｜若【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0721b10〕一【大】｜一切【聖】
- 〔T25 0721b15〕波羅蜜【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721b16〕忍法【大】｜法忍【元】【明】【石】
- 〔T25 0721b17〕是【大】｜見【石】
- 〔T25 0721b22〕導【大】｜道【石】
- 〔T25 0721b23〕中主【大】｜生中【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】
- 〔T25 0721b26〕脫【大】｜脫釋八十三品竟【石】（校記夾註〔傍註〕原樣保留·石本品末收束記·-1 階第二端證·見第四目）
- 〔T25 0721b27〕論【大】｜經論【聖】（卷尾題「大智度論」之「論」字）
- 〔T25 0721b27〕四【大】｜四（釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品）【宋】【元】｜四釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品【聖】（卷尾題「卷第九十四」之「四」字·校記夾註原樣保留·聖本同位夾註亦為 -1 階·見第四目）
以上八十六條與工作底本錨點校記之數機械相合（本目於底本逐一定位本品範圍內之起訖錨，得起訖對七十七、星號九，合八十六，與工作底本檔末清單八十六條相合），星號之目標已隨條標明。品題註、星號九枚、校記夾註三條、次品卷首題註已於上文專列；品題註與次品卷首題註不入此八十六條之帳，已於上文顯式標出。
所釋經見證對讀（已展開二十八處·餘未展開·誌闕待補）。 所釋經 T223 側本品對讀範圍〔T08 0411b15–0412b16〕內，本目逐條掃得起訖錨三十九枚、星號錨五枚，合四十四枚（校勘條三十九）；其與本論互印之異文二十八處與品題之鏡像兩讀，已逐條誌於第四目。T223 側之見證代號序與本論側不同（其一號見證為聖本，而本論側一號見證為宋本），本目所引 T223 側校記皆自其校勘註之現成讀法原樣錄出，未以本論側之代號序推讀。餘條之逐條並錄未展開，據實誌其未展開，待後續補查，不以估值充數。
I. Structural Placement
Within the sequence in which the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa comments on the Larger Sūtra, this chapter belongs to the section of the "Commentary on the Remaining Chapters"; it lies wholly within Fascicle 94, as a single unit. Fascicle 94 begins at〔T25 0715a15〕, and what its fascicle-head title is tied to is still the preceding chapter—「大智度論釋畢定品第八十三之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on Certainty, the Eighty-third, Remainder"〔T25 0715a15〕; right below the fascicle-head title come the two lines of the author's signature and the translator's signature〔T25 0715a18〕〔T25 0715a19〕. This chapter's title, 「大智度論釋四諦品第八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on the Four Truths, the Eighty-fourth"〔T25 0718b11〕, follows straight on from the end of the preceding chapter, "Certainty", Chapter 83, and at the head of the chapter there is no fascicle title and no signature of author or translator (the signatures of author and translator are already at the head of the fascicle and are not repeated). The body of the chapter ends with the sentence 「是菩薩如所願思惟行，為眾生說，使皆度脫。」 tr. "This bodhisattva reflects and practises according to his vow, proclaims it for beings, and causes them all to obtain deliverance."〔T25 0721b25〕, running on to〔T25 0721b26〕, and right below it comes the fascicle-end title 「大智度論卷第九十四」 tr. "Fascicle 94 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa ends here."〔T25 0721b27〕; the title of the next chapter, 「大智度論釋七喻品第八十五」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on the Seven Similes, the Eighty-fifth"〔T25 0721c02〕, begins anew at the head of Fascicle 95. Hence this chapter is of the type placed at the end of the fascicle · the chapter's end tied to the fascicle-end title—differing from Chapter 62, "Training Alike", which lies in the middle of a fascicle and does not touch a fascicle boundary, differing too from the fascicle-crossing type of Chapter 48, "The Mother of the Buddhas", and of the same pattern as Chapter 53, "Tending toward Omniscience", with its ‘placed at the end of the fascicle · the chapter's end tied to the fascicle-end’.
The whole chapter has four thousand three hundred and ninety-six pure Chinese characters (a mechanically recounted value · agreeing with what the draft records), a chapter of middling size among the chapters of the "Commentary on the Remaining Chapters". The structure within the chapter is one 【經】 and one 【論】, a single unit: 【經】〔T25 0718b12〕 and 【論】〔T25 0719b13〕. The 【經】 marker has a collation note: the Song and Shōgozō texts lack this structural marker; the 【論】 marker has no collation note—whether a marker is present belongs to the layer of the base text's transmission, and the structural count still follows the base text's labels.
The speaker structure: Sūtra ① opens with Subhūti addressing the Buddha〔T25 0718b12〕, and the Buddha answers by telling Subhūti〔T25 0718b13〕; below this the questions and answers go back and forth in twenty changes of hand in all, one question and one answer alternating, with no other person cutting in—in the whole chapter the speakers present are only two, the Buddha and Subhūti, which differs in form from Chapter 62, "Training Alike", where Śakra, a bhikṣu, Ānanda, and several others interweave. Of the twenty changes of hand, fourteen are marked in the text: 「須菩提白佛言」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha" is seen six times (〔T25 0718b12〕〔T25 0718b21〕〔T25 0718c07〕〔T25 0719a06〕〔T25 0719a13〕〔T25 0719a20〕), 「佛告須菩提」 tr. "the Buddha told Subhūti" three times (〔T25 0718b13〕〔T25 0719a09〕〔T25 0719a23〕), and 「佛言」 tr. "the Buddha said" as a speaker marker standing on its own five times (〔T25 0718b27〕〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c10〕〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕; the two Chinese characters 「佛言」 tr. "the Buddha said" in the other six occurrences are the tail of 「須菩提白佛言」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha" and not a speaker marker, and are counted separately as they are). The remaining six changes of hand have no marker in the text: of the four occurrences where Subhūti continues his questioning from what precedes,〔T25 0718c09〕〔T25 0718c10〕〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕, the two places〔T25 0719b03〕〔T25 0719b04〕 open with 「世尊！」 tr. "World-Honored One!" and the Buddha takes them up with 「佛言」 tr. "the Buddha said", while the other two simply continue the questioning with 「世尊！」 tr. "World-Honored One!"; there are two where the Buddha continues his teaching from what precedes and says only 「須菩提！」 tr. "Subhūti!"〔T25 0718c12〕〔T25 0719a14〕—these all belong to the normal style of this sūtra; it is not that the speaker is unclear.
Treatise ① begins its discussion with 「問曰：」 tr. "Question:"〔T25 0719b13〕; 「問曰：」 tr. "Question:" is seen eight times and 「答曰：」 tr. "Answer:" eight times, matched pair by pair with no answer missing, obtained by this section by locating each one in the stream of Chinese characters:〔T25 0719b13〕/〔T25 0719b15〕,〔T25 0719c26〕/〔T25 0719c28〕,〔T25 0720a09〕/〔T25 0720a10〕,〔T25 0720b16〕/〔T25 0720b18〕,〔T25 0720c07〕/〔T25 0720c08〕,〔T25 0720c20〕/〔T25 0720c23〕,〔T25 0721a14〕/〔T25 0721a15〕,〔T25 0721b05〕/〔T25 0721b06〕. The form 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" is seen once〔T25 0720c03〕. 「復次」 tr. "again" is seen four times in the whole chapter: once in the sūtra section〔T25 0719a16〕 (「復次，須菩提！是四聖諦如、不異……」 tr. "Again, Subhūti! These four noble truths are suchness, not-different …"), and three times in the treatise section〔T25 0720a13〕〔T25 0720c02〕〔T25 0721a02〕, all of them continuations that supplement the meaning, not questions and answers.
In the treatise section there is in addition a kind that must be attributed separately: simulated questions and answers in which the treatise-author re-quotes the sūtra text himself—「須菩提復問」 tr. "Subhūti asks again" four times (〔T25 0719c05〕〔T25 0719c25〕〔T25 0720a14〕〔T25 0721a08〕), 「佛答」 tr. "the Buddha answers" five times (〔T25 0720a19〕〔T25 0720c15〕〔T25 0720c29〕〔T25 0721a10〕〔T25 0721b04〕), 「佛可須菩提意，還以所問答須菩提」 tr. "the Buddha assents to Subhūti's intent, and answers Subhūti in turn with what he asked" once〔T25 0719c10〕, and 「須菩提問佛」 tr. "Subhūti asks the Buddha"〔T25 0720c29〕 and 「須菩提問」 tr. "Subhūti asks"〔T25 0721b02〕 once each. All of these are the narrative style of the treatise-author restating the sūtra text, not some other speaker present within the treatise section; their wording often differs in fullness from the text of the sūtra section itself (for examples see Section IV), and they are attributed separately as they are, not confused with the sūtra text.
II. Terms Examined
The equality of the four noble truths. The chapter's general headline, and what its naming is tied to. The five Chinese characters 「四聖諦平等」 tr. "the equality of the four noble truths" are seen three times in the stream of Chinese characters of the whole of this treatise, all in this chapter (〔T25 0719a11〕〔T25 0719a14〕〔T25 0719a16〕), as obtained by this section rescanning string by string—this phrase is not a common set expression of this treatise but is set up specially by this chapter. The sūtra itself gives two explanations of its meaning: first, equality by effacing the eight dharmas—「若無苦、無苦智，無集、無集智，無滅、無滅智，無道、無道智，是名四聖諦平等。」 tr. "If there is no suffering and no knowledge of suffering, no origin and no knowledge of origin, no cessation and no knowledge of cessation, no path and no knowledge of the path, this is named the equality of the four noble truths."〔T25 0719a14〕; second, equality because the four truths are precisely suchness and precisely the limit of reality—「是四聖諦如、不異、法相、法性、法住、法位、實際，有佛、無佛，法相常住，為不誑不失故。」 tr. "These four noble truths are suchness, not-different, the mark of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the limit of reality; whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas abide constantly, because they do not deceive and are not lost."〔T25 0719a16〕. And where it leads, the sūtra has already marked out beforehand: 「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa"〔T25 0719a11〕. The treatise explains the first explanation as 「若無八法處——所謂四諦、四諦智，是則平等。」 tr. "If there is no place of the eight dharmas—namely the four truths and the knowledges of the four truths—this is equality."〔T25 0721a01〕, using 「八法」 tr. "the eight dharmas" to gather the number of 「四諦、四諦智」 tr. "the four truths and the knowledges of the four truths"; the sūtra text only lists them and does not sum up their name, and 「八法」 tr. "the eight dharmas" is a numerical term set up by the treatise-author, recorded separately as it is.
The path without obstruction · the path of liberation. The words that mark the boundary between the Buddha and the bodhisattva. The sūtra: 「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction; this is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva; within the path of liberation there is no obscuration of any kind; this is the Buddha."〔T25 0718b19〕—the five Chinese characters 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction" are seen once in the stream of Chinese characters of the whole of this treatise, namely here; the four Chinese characters 「解脫道中」 tr. "within the path of liberation" are seen thirteen times in the whole treatise, once in this chapter〔T25 0718b20〕, all the rest in other chapters, as obtained by this section rescanning string by string. The substance of that boundary the treatise explains itself: 「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises the six perfections as they truly are, he has not yet been able to be all-pervading, not yet able to enter every gate; therefore he is not named Buddha."〔T25 0719b20〕, 「若菩薩已入一切種智門，入諸法實相中，以一念相應智慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，斷一切煩惱習，得諸法中自在力，爾時名為佛。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva has already entered the gate of the omniscience of all kinds, has entered into the real mark of all dharmas, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, severs all the afflictions and their habitual residues, and obtains the power of sovereignty within dharmas, at that time he is named Buddha."〔T25 0719b22〕—the boundary lies not in the dharmas practised but in whether or not one is all-pervading. Junzheng cites these two paths to set up his meaning (see Section VI).
Heading toward the path · obtaining the fruit. The simile for the same meaning as above, seen twice, in the sūtra and in the treatise. The sūtra has 「譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。」 tr. "Just as heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit differ, yet these two people are both sages."〔T25 0718b18〕; the treatise re-quotes it as 「此中佛自說譬喻：『如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。』」 tr. "Herein the Buddha himself states a simile: ‘As heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, though both are equally sages, still differ.’"〔T25 0719c01〕. The stream of Chinese characters 「向道得果」 tr. "heading toward the path, obtaining the fruit" is seen twice in the whole of this treatise, namely at these two places in the sūtra and the treatise, as obtained by this section's rescanning—this simile is used by this chapter alone.
The emptiness of specific marks · the emptiness of self-nature. This chapter uses both names together, and they are a chief item of this chapter's collation. 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks" is seen ten times within the range of this chapter (〔T25 0718b22〕 twice,〔T25 0718b28〕〔T25 0718b29〕〔T25 0718c12〕〔T25 0719c05〕〔T25 0720a24〕,〔T25 0721b05〕 twice,〔T25 0721b07〕), and 「自性空」 tr. "the emptiness of self-nature" six times (〔T25 0718c15〕〔T25 0718c16〕〔T25 0719b04〕〔T25 0719c11〕〔T25 0720a20〕〔T25 0721b12〕), as obtained by this section rescanning string by string. In this chapter the two names point to the same thing—the opening of the sūtra's question sets up 「若一切法自相空」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty of specific marks"〔T25 0718b21〕, while the final word of its answer reads 「佛言：『自性空。……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘The emptiness of self-nature. …’"〔T25 0719b04〕, and the last passage of the treatise's explanation gathers it up again with 「自相空是中空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness"〔T25 0721b07〕. The interchange of the two names is not an oversight of this chapter but the point where the texts cross in mutual collation:〔T25 0718c17〕 「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "nature (Taishō) | mark (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace)", and〔T25 0719b04〕 「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」 tr. "nature (Taishō) | mark (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō, Ishiyama)"—where the base text has 「性」 tr. "nature", most of the texts have 「相」 tr. "mark", and the reading they form is precisely the reading of the sūtra explained (see Section IV). Recorded side by side without judgement.
Contained by the four noble truths · not contained by the four noble truths. The criterion sentence for entering the bodhisattva's position. The sūtra: 「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」 tr. "Sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty."〔T25 0719a24〕—the five Chinese characters 「四聖諦所攝」 tr. "contained by the four noble truths" are seen once in the whole of this treatise, namely here. What it is that is 「所不攝」 tr. "not contained", the sūtra does not name; the treatise supplies it itself in a later passage: 「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡；餘在四諦。」 tr. "As for what is not the four truths: space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning; the rest is within the four truths."〔T25 0721a12〕—taking the two unconditioned dharmas, space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning, as what the four truths do not contain. 「非數緣盡」 tr. "the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning" is seen six times in the whole of this treatise, once in this chapter〔T25 0721a13〕. Junzheng cites this sentence of this chapter to set up his account of the position of the summit (see Section VI).
The ground of the stage of nature · the summit-fall. The bodhisattva's position of non-retrogression. The sūtra: 「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮。用是頂墮故，墮聲聞、辟支佛地。」 tr. "This is the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit. It is because of this summit-fall that one falls into the ground of the śrāvaka or of the pratyekabuddha."〔T25 0719a26〕; 「性地」 tr. "the ground of the stage of nature" is seen seven times within the range of this chapter (〔T25 0718b23〕〔T25 0719a26〕〔T25 0719a28〕〔T25 0721a17〕〔T25 0721a18〕〔T25 0721a20〕〔T25 0721a21〕). The treatise explains its name by comparison with the four wholesome roots of the śrāvaka's dharma: 「性地者，所謂菩薩法位。如聲聞法中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地。」 tr. "The ground of the stage of nature is what is called the bodhisattva's Dharma-position. As in the śrāvaka's dharma, the dharma of warmth, the dharma of the summit, the dharma of acceptance, and the highest worldly dharma are named the ground of the stage of nature."〔T25 0721a18〕, 「是法隨順無漏道，故名為性，是中住必望得道」 tr. "these dharmas accord with the path without outflows, and therefore they are named nature; abiding within them, one surely hopes to obtain the path"〔T25 0721a20〕—the gloss of 「性」 tr. "nature" lies in 「隨順無漏」 tr. "according with what is without outflows", not in ‘originally existing’. Jizang's commentary takes the same comparison (see Section VI).
Black deeds · white deeds · black-and-white deeds · deeds without outflows. The heads of the four deeds and their glosses, all coming from the treatise section's own explanation. 「黑業」 tr. "black deeds" are 「是不善業，果報：地獄等受苦惱處。是中眾生，以大苦惱悶極，故名為黑。」 tr. "unwholesome deeds; their retribution: the hells and the other places where suffering and vexation are undergone. The beings herein, because of great suffering and vexation, swoon away to the utmost; therefore it is named black."〔T25 0720a02〕; white deeds are 「受善業果報處，所謂諸天。以其受樂隨意自在明了，故名為『白業』。」 tr. "the place where the retribution of wholesome deeds is undergone, namely the gods. Because they receive pleasure at will, being sovereign and clear, it is named ‘white deeds’."〔T25 0720a04〕; black-and-white deeds are 「善、不善業受果報處，所謂人、阿修羅等八部。此處亦受樂、亦受苦，故名為『白黑業』。」 tr. "the place where the retribution of wholesome and unwholesome deeds is undergone, namely humans, asuras, and the rest of the eight classes. This place undergoes both pleasure and suffering; therefore it is named ‘black-and-white deeds’."〔T25 0720a06〕; and of the last deed: 「『無漏業』能破不善有漏業，能拔眾生令離善惡果報中。」 tr. "‘Deeds without outflows’ can break unwholesome deeds with outflows, and can pull beings out so that they are free from the retribution of wholesome and evil."〔T25 0720a08〕. Why these are not named white, the treatise sets as a question and answers: 「無漏法雖清淨無垢，以空、無相、無作故無所分別，不得言白。黑、白是相待法，此中無相待故不得言白。」 tr. "Though the dharmas without outflows are pure and without stain, because they are emptiness, the signless, and non-action, there is nothing in them that discriminates, and one may not say that they are white. Black and white are dharmas that stand over against each other; because herein there is no standing over against each other, one may not say that they are white."〔T25 0720a10〕, 「復次，無漏業能滅一切，諸觀中分別故有黑、白，此中無觀故無白。」 tr. "Again, deeds without outflows can extinguish everything; it is because there is discrimination within the contemplations that there is black and white; because herein there is no contemplation, there is no white."〔T25 0720a13〕—the two layers of reason differ: the former argues from standing over against each other, the latter from the presence or absence of contemplation, recorded separately as they are. The sūtra side only lists the names of the four deeds and asks whether they are obtained or not〔T25 0718c09〕, and does not give the glosses of the four deeds; the glosses of the four deeds are supplied by the treatise-author alone.
Unmoving deeds. The division of deeds for birth in the three realms. The treatise: 「善業復有二種：一者、欲界繫，二者、色、無色界繫。色、無色界繫生業名不動，不動業故生色、無色界。」 tr. "Wholesome deeds again are of two kinds: first, those bound to the desire realm; second, those bound to the form and formless realms. The deeds of birth bound to the form and formless realms are named unmoving; because of unmoving deeds one is born in the form and formless realms."〔T25 0719c16〕—the sūtra side has 「無動業因緣故，色、無色界中生。」 tr. "Because of the causes and conditions of deeds without movement, they are born in the form and formless realms."〔T25 0718c02〕; the sūtra writes 「無動」 tr. "without movement" and the treatise writes 「不動」 tr. "unmoving"—they point to the same thing while the wording differs, recorded separately as it is.
Nirvāṇa with remainder. Brought out when the treatise explains the question 「以苦滅」 tr. "by suffering, cessation". The treatise: 「愛等諸煩惱滅故，名有餘涅槃。」 tr. "Because craving and the other afflictions cease, it is named nirvāṇa with remainder."〔T25 0720c10〕—「有餘涅槃」 tr. "nirvāṇa with remainder" is seen thirteen times in the whole of this treatise, once in this chapter. Its counterpart 「無餘涅槃」 tr. "nirvāṇa without remainder" is also seen once in this chapter: 「將入無餘涅槃，亦知道諦虛誑」 tr. "about to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, one also knows that the truth of the path is false and deceptive"〔T25 0720c24〕.
The emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi · the simile of the raft. The method of relinquishing the truth of the path. The treatise: 「以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。」 tr. "By the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says."〔T25 0720c25〕—「空空三昧」 tr. "the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi" is seen seven times in the whole of this treatise, once in this chapter; the four Chinese characters 「如說栰喻」 tr. "as the simile of the raft says" are seen once in the whole treatise, namely here. Here this treatise only points briefly to its simile with 「如說」 tr. "as … says" and does not retell it; the text of the simile itself is not in this chapter, and its brief pointing is recorded as it is, not filled in on its behalf.
The emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness. The rank within the eighteen emptinesses, the last item of the treatise section. The treatise: 「是中道空。內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」 tr. "This is the emptiness of the middle way. Inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest are the small emptinesses; ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses; the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness."〔T25 0721b06〕, 「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。」 tr. "Because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and it can enter into the very deep emptiness."〔T25 0721b07〕—the six Chinese characters 「自相空是中空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness" are seen once in the stream of Chinese characters of the whole of this treatise, namely here. The setting up of the three layers (the small emptinesses / the middle emptiness / the very deep emptinesses) is brought out by this chapter alone. Jizang's commentary cites this passage with slightly different wording (see Section VI).
The power of skilful means · the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising. The concluding words at the end of the chapter. The treatise: 「方便力者，菩薩得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦。」 tr. "As for the power of skilful means: the bodhisattva obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva's position, and penetrates the bodhisattva's truth of the highest meaning."〔T25 0721b16〕—the sūtra side only says 「以方便力故，為是眾生說法。」 tr. "By the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma for these beings."〔T25 0719b11〕 and does not explain the substance of 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means"; its gloss is supplied by the treatise-author: he does not state the dharma of emptiness directly, but first accomplishes the thirty-two marks and the other wholesome dharmas in order to lead beings on, and therefore below it follows 「我今當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生」 tr. "I shall now accomplish all wholesome dharmas and adorn my body with the thirty-two marks, to lead beings on"〔T25 0721b21〕.
The five destinies · the six destinies. This chapter's densest point of collation crossing, and also a divergence in the usage of the two canons. 「五道」 tr. "the five destinies" is seen eleven times within the range of this chapter (six in the sūtra section:〔T25 0718c06〕〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c14〕〔T25 0718c16〕〔T25 0718c22〕〔T25 0719a05〕; five in the treatise section:〔T25 0719c24〕〔T25 0719c26〕〔T25 0719c27〕〔T25 0719c28〕〔T25 0720a01〕), and 「六道」 tr. "the six destinies" four times, all in the treatise section (〔T25 0720a21〕〔T25 0720a29〕〔T25 0720b07〕〔T25 0720c06〕), as obtained by this section rescanning string by string. The sūtra section uses only 「五道」 tr. "the five destinies" and not a single 「六道」 tr. "the six destinies"; the treatise section uses the five destinies and the six destinies side by side. Further, of the eleven occurrences of 「五道」 tr. "the five destinies", ten carry a variant reading with 「六」 tr. "six" (entries eight, nine, twelve, thirteen, twenty-one, twenty-four, forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, and forty-six of Section VIII), and only one,〔T25 0719c24〕, has no collation note; while the four occurrences of 「六道」 tr. "the six destinies" in the treatise section have no collation note at all—the pressure of variant readings lies wholly on the side of the character 「五」 tr. "five"; on the side of the character 「六」 tr. "six" the texts do not dispute. The count on the side of the sūtra explained also forms a case of its own (see Section IV). This divergence of ‘five destinies / six destinies’ is an old difference between schools over whether the destiny of the asuras is counted or not, not peculiar to this chapter; recorded as it is without judgement.
III. Similes and Stories
This chapter has ten key similes, all set up or re-quoted by the treatise-author, none set up at large; on the sūtra side there is only the one simile 「向道、得果」 tr. "heading toward the path, obtaining the fruit".
Heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit (the distinction between the Buddha and the bodhisattva). The sūtra: 「譬如向道、得果異，是二人俱為聖人。」 tr. "Just as heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit differ, yet these two people are both sages."〔T25 0718b18〕; the treatise re-quotes and extends it: 「如向道、得果，雖同為聖人而有差別。」 tr. "As heading toward the path and obtaining the fruit, though both are equally sages, still differ."〔T25 0719c02〕, and right below it matches it: 「行者名為菩薩，從初發心乃至金剛三昧；佛已得果，斷一切法中疑，無所不了，故名為佛。」 tr. "The one practising is named bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind up to the vajra samādhi; the Buddha has already obtained the fruit, has severed the doubts within all dharmas, there being nothing he has not thoroughly understood; therefore he is named Buddha."〔T25 0719c03〕—both are equally sages and yet are divided into heading toward and having obtained; hence the difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva lies not in kind but in position.
The moon of the fourteenth day and the moon of the fifteenth day (the simile of being all-pervading). Explaining the phrase 「未能周遍」 tr. "has not yet been able to be all-pervading", the treatise brings out an utterly exact simile: 「如月十四日、十五日，雖同為月，十四日不能令大海水潮」 tr. "Like the moon of the fourteenth day and of the fifteenth day: though both are equally the moon, the moon of the fourteenth cannot make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide"〔T25 0719b25〕, 「月十五日光明盛滿時，能令大海水潮；菩薩成佛亦如是，放大光明，能動十方國土眾生。」 tr. "When the moon of the fifteenth day is full in its brightness, it can make the waters of the great ocean rise in tide; the bodhisattva becoming a Buddha is also like this: he emits great light and can move the beings of the lands of the ten directions."〔T25 0719b28〕—the force of the simile lies in the character 「潮」 tr. "tide": it is not that the moon of the fourteenth is without brightness; it is that its brightness is not yet enough to move the sea. The difference is a single day, and yet whether it can move the sea is judged clearly apart, exactly matching the four Chinese characters 「未能周遍」 tr. "has not yet been able to be all-pervading".
Without disease no need of medicine · without darkness no need of a lamp (the reason for setting up deliverance). The treatise explains that if beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, the bodhisattva would not need to arouse the mind: 「眾生自知諸法性空，則無所度；譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。」 tr. "Were beings themselves to know that dharmas are empty of nature, there would then be no one to deliver; just as without disease there is no need of medicine, and without darkness no need of the light of a lamp."〔T25 0720a22〕—medicine and the lamp are both set up because of disease and darkness; they have no reality of their own; the bodhisattva's delivering of beings is likewise.
Atoms heaped up make a mountain (the simile of heavy bondage). The treatise distinguishes the lightness and heaviness of the fetters: 「若但生眾生法想，結縛猶輕，易可得度。生貪欲、瞋恚，於是中起諸重業，是為重縛，受此業果報，則難可得度；譬如積微塵成山，難可得移動。」 tr. "If they give rise only to the notion of beings and dharmas, the fetters are still light, and they are easily delivered. If they give rise to craving and anger and within these raise up heavy deeds, this is heavy bondage; undergoing the retribution of these deeds, they are then hard to deliver; just as atoms heaped up make a mountain, hard to move."〔T25 0720b08〕—each atom is utterly light; heaped up into a mountain, they cannot be moved; the forming of heavy bondage lies precisely in its heaping up.
In grave illness first remove the disease, and only then adorn the body (the sequence of the four truths). The treatise explains why the Buddha speaks only of the four dharmas, suffering, origin, cessation, and path: 「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」 tr. "What beings fear most urgently is nothing more than suffering; once suffering has been removed for them, only then are they shown the Buddha path. As when a person is gravely ill, removing the disease comes first as the urgent thing; only afterwards does one adorn his body with precious things and clothing."〔T25 0720b18〕—the four truths are not the summit of the Buddha-dharma; they are its urgency; the precious things and clothing come afterwards, not never.
Wine used to spread a medicine (the matching of the eightfold right path). The treatise explains the eight limbs of the truth of the path: 「於八聖道分中為正見，餘七事助成發起，能斷一切法中愛；如以酒發藥。」 tr. "Within the eightfold noble path it is right view; the other seven matters help to accomplish it and set it going, and it can sever craving within all dharmas; as wine is used to spread a medicine."〔T25 0720b28〕—right view is the medicine, the other seven are the wine; the wine is not the medicine, yet the medicine depends on the wine in order to act.
Disease, sore, enemy, thief (the marks of contemplating suffering). The treatise lists the marks under which the five aggregates are contemplated: 「所謂無常、苦、空、無我，如病、如瘡、如怨、如賊等」 tr. "namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, like a disease, like a sore, like an enemy, like a thief, and so on"〔T25 0720b27〕; at the end of the chapter it matches them again with the bodhisattva's contemplation of suffering: 「是人身皆如賊、如怨，無常、空等。」 tr. "This person's body is entirely like a thief, like an enemy, impermanent, empty, and so on."〔T25 0721a26〕—they come out twice, before and after: once as the marks of the śrāvaka's gate of contemplation, once as what the bodhisattva knows without taking the truth of suffering as object, recorded separately as they are.
Oxen and sheep too should obtain the path (refuting ‘cessation by the truth alone’). The treatise refutes it by reduction to absurdity: 「若以苦諦得道，一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！」 tr. "If one obtained the path by the truth of suffering, all beings, oxen, sheep, and the rest, should also obtain the path!"〔T25 0720c10〕—the truth of suffering is what beings have in common; if the truth alone gave the path, then those who do not cultivate should also obtain it; these words are utterly steep, and what they refute is the attachment that ‘the object can deliver of itself’.
The going out of a lamp (the simile of the cessation of suffering). The treatise explains that one may not seek a fixed place for the truth of cessation: 「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」 tr. "The cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse."〔T25 0720c27〕—the going out of a lamp is not the fire going off somewhere else; the cessation of suffering likewise is not suffering moving to another place. It follows on from the sūtra quoted above it: 「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為。」 tr. "Apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; it is because of the conditioned that the unconditioned is spoken of."〔T25 0720c26〕.
The simile of the raft (relinquishing the truth of the path). The treatise only points to it briefly with the four Chinese characters 「如說栰喻」 tr. "as the simile of the raft says"〔T25 0720c25〕; the text of the simile itself is not in this chapter (see Section II).
IV. The Sūtra Passage Explained
The net of the two parties to the chapter name: The Four Truths / Difference (recorded side by side without judgement). The chapter name of this chapter has two parties, each recorded here according to the collation notes. First, The Four Truths—the chapter title of this treatise's base text〔T25 0718b11〕, 「大智度論釋四諦品第八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Commentary on the Chapter on the Four Truths, the Eighty-fourth", whose basis is the core teaching of this chapter's sūtra text (teaching the four noble truths for beings; the equality of the four noble truths being precisely nirvāṇa). Second, Difference—the Palace edition of this treatise has 「差別品」 tr. "Difference" (entry one of the ledger below), and the Ming edition further ties an interlinear note below the chapter number, 「有本作差別品」 tr. "one edition has it as Difference" (entry two of the ledger below; the note as it stands in its own reading is an interlinear note below 「八十四」 tr. "eighty-four"). The two names each take one meaning of this chapter: the base text takes the four noble truths spoken of in the sūtra text, the Palace edition takes the difference of distinctions asked about in the sūtra text (「自相空法中，云何有差別之異」 tr. "within dharmas empty of specific marks, how can there be the difference of distinctions"〔T25 0718b22〕); recorded side by side without judgement.
The mirror-image two readings of the chapter title of the sūtra explained (the eye of this section). The chapter title of this chapter on the side of the sūtra explained, T223,〔T08 0411b15〕 reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜經差別品第八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, Chapter Eighty-four, Difference", and its note says 「差別【大】，四諦【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "Difference (Taishō), The Four Truths (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—the T223 base text has 「差別」 tr. "Difference", while the three texts Yuan, Ming, and Shōgozō on the contrary have 「四諦」 tr. "The Four Truths". Set against the note on the chapter title on this treatise's side (the base text has 「四諦」 tr. "The Four Truths", the Palace edition 「差別」 tr. "Difference"), the collation notes of the two parties form an exact mirror image: the reading of this treatise's base text (The Four Truths) is precisely the reading of T223's variant texts, and the reading of T223's base text (Difference) is precisely the reading of this treatise's Palace edition. The chapter title has in addition an interlinear note〔T08 0411b16〕, whose own reading as it stands is the interlinear note 「丹本作四諦品」 tr. "the Khitan edition has it as The Four Truths", and its note says 「丹…品【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」 tr. "Khitan … chapter (Taishō), omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō)"—the name marked by the Khitan edition's interlinear note is also 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths", of the same lineage as this treatise's base text; and this stands pair against pair with this treatise's Ming-edition interlinear note 「有本作差別品」 tr. "one edition has it as Difference", also forming a mirror image. The two readings of the chapter name are not a wavering within one canon but two readings that the transmissions of the two canons each keep side by side; recorded as it is, without judging which is correct. Further, the table-of-contents marker of T223 marks the heading as 「84 差別品」 tr. "84 Difference"〔T08 0411b15〕, of the same lineage as its visible chapter title.
The Ishiyama text's chapter name and its step of −1 (proof at both ends). The note on this treatise's chapter title〔T25 0718b11〕, in its own reading as it stands, is 「大智度論【大】，〔－〕【明】，卷第九十五首【石】，石山本無造號譯號，〔大智…四〕十二宇－【聖】，（（大智…四））十二字＝（（大智度經品第八十三四諦品卷九十五））十六字【石】」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (Taishō), omitted (Ming), head of Fascicle Ninety-five (Ishiyama), the Ishiyama text has no author's or translator's signature, [Mahā … four] twelve characters omitted (Shōgozō), ((Mahā … four)) twelve characters = ((Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, chapter the eighty-third, the chapter The Four Truths, Fascicle Ninety-five)) sixteen characters (Ishiyama)"—the Ishiyama text's chapter title also names it 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths", the same as the base text; but its chapter number reads 「第八十三」 tr. "the eighty-third", one less than the base text. This step of −1 is seen at one more end within the range of this chapter: in the note on the character 「脫」 tr. "deliverance" at the end of the chapter, the Ishiyama text reads 「脫釋八十三品竟」 tr. "deliverance; the commentary on the eighty-third chapter ends" (entry eighty-four of the ledger below)—the interlinear note of the type ‘the commentary on such-and-such chapter ends’ at the end of the chapter and the chapter title prove each other at two layers, both reading 「八十三」 tr. "eighty-three", not a solitary proof. Again, the own reading as it stands of the note on the character 「四」 tr. "four" of the fascicle-end title (entry eighty-six of the ledger below) also records that the Shōgozō text reads 「釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品」 tr. "explaining from the latter part of the eighty-second chapter to the end of the eighty-third chapter"—the chapter number to which the Shōgozō text ties the fascicle is also a step of −1—while the interlinear note at the same position in the Song and Yuan texts reads 「釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品」 tr. "explaining from the latter part of the eighty-third chapter to the end of the eighty-fourth chapter", agreeing with the base text—the step of −1 is not peculiar to the Ishiyama text; the Shōgozō text here also goes the same way, recorded separately as it is.
The double track of the Ishiyama text's fascicle numbering (the record of the fascicle head within the note on the chapter title). The note on the chapter title records first 「卷第九十五首【石】」 tr. "head of Fascicle Ninety-five (Ishiyama)", and records 「石山本無造號譯號」 tr. "the Ishiyama text has no author's or translator's signature"—the Ishiyama text takes the place of this chapter's title as the head of its Fascicle Ninety-five, and its fascicle head is not tied to an author's or translator's signature. The base text has no fascicle boundary at this place (Fascicle Ninety-four ends only at〔T25 0721b27〕, and this chapter lies wholly within it), and its author's and translator's signatures are at the head of Fascicle Ninety-four〔T25 0715a18〕〔T25 0715a19〕—the double track of fascicle and chapter in the base text and the Ishiyama text do not coincide; recorded as it is, without forcing an explanation.
The name 「法性無作／非作」 tr. "The Nature of Dharmas Without Making / Not Made" is tied to the next chapter, not to this chapter (mutual proof from three sides). The note on the head title of Fascicle Ninety-five〔T25 0721c02〕, in its own reading as it stands, is 「（大智…五）十二字【大】，大智度經論釋第八十四品訖第八十五品【聖】，大智度經第八十四法性無作品【石】」 tr. "(Mahā … five) twelve characters (Taishō), Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, explaining the eighty-fourth chapter to the end of the eighty-fifth chapter (Shōgozō), Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, the eighty-fourth, the chapter The Nature of Dharmas Without Making (Ishiyama)"—what this note is tied to is the head title of Fascicle Ninety-five (that is, the chapter title of the next chapter, "The Seven Similes", Chapter 85), and it is not within the range of this chapter; matched with the Ishiyama text's step of −1 (the Ishiyama text's 「第八十四」 tr. "the eighty-fourth" is precisely the base text's eighty-fifth), the 「法性無作品」 tr. "The Nature of Dharmas Without Making" named by the Ishiyama text is another name of the next chapter, "The Seven Similes". This has two collateral proofs: first, the note on the next chapter's title on the T223 side〔T08 0412b17〕 reads 「七譬【大】，七喻【宋】【元】【明】【宮】，法性非作【聖】」 tr. "Seven Similes [pi] (Taishō), Seven Similes [yu] (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace), The Nature of Dharmas Not Made (Shōgozō)"—the Shōgozō text on the side of the sūtra explained also names the next chapter 「法性非作」 tr. "The Nature of Dharmas Not Made"; second, Jizang's commentary states the other names of the next chapter itself—「故云七譬品，亦言性空品，亦云法性非作品也。」 tr. "Hence it is called the chapter The Seven Similes; it is also called the chapter Emptiness of Nature, and also called the chapter The Nature of Dharmas Not Made."〔X24n0451 0338a19〕. The three sides prove one another: 「法性無作／非作」 tr. "The Nature of Dharmas Without Making / Not Made" is indeed another name of the next chapter, not another name of this chapter, recorded as it is. The established names of this chapter are only the two parties 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" and 「差別品」 tr. "Difference".
The duplications and skipped numbers in the table-of-contents chapter order of T223 (recorded without judgement). On the side of the sūtra explained, T223, the table-of-contents chapter order of this chapter is marked 「85」 tr. "the number 85" while the visible text marks 「84 差別品」 tr. "84 Difference"〔T08 0411b15〕. The table-of-contents chapter order of the five chapters before and after it, in the base text's order of appearance, is: 「82 淨土品」 tr. "82 Pure Land" marked 「82」 tr. "the number 82"〔T08 0407b09〕, 「83 畢定品」 tr. "83 Certainty" marked 「84」 tr. "the number 84"〔T08 0409b13〕, 「84 差別品」 tr. "84 Difference" marked 「85」 tr. "the number 85"〔T08 0411b15〕, 「85 七譬品」 tr. "85 The Seven Similes" marked 「85」 tr. "the number 85"〔T08 0412b17〕, 「86 平等品」 tr. "86 Equality" marked 「87」 tr. "the number 87"〔T08 0413c10〕, 「87 如化品」 tr. "87 Like a Conjuration" marked 「87」 tr. "the number 87"〔T08 0415b27〕—before and after this chapter three kinds of flaw are seen at once: ‘a +1 offset’, ‘duplication of the preceding entry’, and ‘a skipped number’. This belongs to the records of CBETA's heading layer, not to a divergence of the visible chapter order (the chapter order follows the Chinese numerals 「八十三」 tr. "eighty-three", 「八十四」 tr. "eighty-four", 「八十五」 tr. "eighty-five", with no ambiguity); following the standing practice already recorded, it is recorded chapter by chapter and not treated as an anomaly.
The chapter boundary and fascicle boundary on the T223 side (differing from this treatise's side). On the side of the sūtra explained this chapter begins at〔T08 0411b15〕 and ends at〔T08 0412b16〕, and the title of the next chapter, "The Seven Similes", Chapter 85,〔T08 0412b17〕 follows straight after it; the two chapters lie together within Fascicle Twenty-six of the sūtra explained, not touching a fascicle boundary; on this treatise's side this chapter lies at the end of Fascicle Ninety-four and the next chapter begins anew at the head of Fascicle Ninety-five (see Section I)—the two transmissions do not agree in their division of fascicles and chapters at this chapter, recorded as it is.
A full comparative reading of the re-quoted sūtra (collation of the two sides · twenty-eight variants · recording at each place whether there is a collation note). Reading this treatise's Sūtra ①〔T25 0718b12–0719b12〕 character by character against "Difference" of the sūtra explained〔T08 0411b17–0412b16〕, there are twenty-eight differences, listed in the order of their appearance in the base text:
- And yet there is the difference of having obtained and heading toward—this treatise reads 「是二人俱為聖人。」 tr. "These two people are both sages."〔T25 0718b18〕, while T223 has six more Chinese characters, reading 「是二人俱為聖人，而有得、向之異。」 tr. "These two people are both sages, and yet there is the difference of having obtained and heading toward."〔T08 0411b24〕. Both parties have collation notes here: on this treatise's side, 「聖人【大】｜聖人而有得向之異【宋】【元】【明】【宮】｜聖人而有得向亦肴【聖】｜賢聖而有得向之異【石】」 tr. "sages (Taishō) | sages, and yet there is the difference of having obtained and heading toward (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace) | sages, and yet having obtained and heading toward also yao (Shōgozō) | the worthy and sages, and yet there is the difference of having obtained and heading toward (Ishiyama)" (entry five of the ledger below)—the reading formed by the four texts Song, Yuan, Ming, and Palace is precisely the reading of the T223 base text; on the T223 side the notes read 「而有得向之異【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "and yet there is the difference of having obtained and heading toward (Taishō), omitted (Shōgozō)"〔T08 0411b24〕 and 「聖人【大】，賢聖【宮】」 tr. "sages (Taishō), the worthy and sages (Palace)"〔T08 0411b24〕—the Shōgozō text lacks these six Chinese characters, exactly agreeing with this treatise's base text, while the 「賢聖」 tr. "the worthy and sages" of the T223 Palace edition exactly agrees with the 「賢聖」 tr. "the worthy and sages" of this treatise's Ishiyama text. Four sides cross one another; this is the entry with the most complete mirror image.
- If—this treatise reads 「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction"〔T25 0718b19〕, while T223 reads 「若菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行」 tr. "if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction"〔T08 0411b25〕. The T223 side has the note 「若【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "if (Taishō), omitted (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—the three texts Yuan, Ming, and Shōgozō lack the character 「若」 tr. "if", exactly agreeing with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note at this place.
- This is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva / this is named a bodhisattva—this treatise reads 「是名菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "this is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva"〔T25 0718b20〕, while T223 reads 「是名菩薩」 tr. "this is named a bodhisattva"〔T08 0411b26〕. The T223 side has the note 「薩【大】，薩摩訶薩【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」 tr. "-sattva (Taishō), -sattva-mahāsattva (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō)"—the reading formed by the five texts exactly agrees with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- This is the Buddha / this is named the Buddha—this treatise reads 「是為佛」 tr. "this is the Buddha"〔T25 0718b21〕, while T223 reads 「是名為佛」 tr. "this is named the Buddha"〔T08 0411b27〕. The T223 side has the note 「名【大】，〔－〕【元】【聖】」 tr. "named (Taishō), omitted (Yuan, Shōgozō)"—the two texts Yuan and Shōgozō exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- The person of the eighth ground / the ground of the person of the eight—this treatise reads 「是八地人」 tr. "this is the person of the eighth ground"〔T25 0718b23〕, while T223 reads 「是八人地」 tr. "this is the ground of the person of the eight"〔T08 0411b29〕. Both parties have collation notes: on this treatise's side, 「地人【大】｜人地【元】【明】【石】」 tr. "ground-person (Taishō) | person-ground (Yuan, Ming, Ishiyama)" (entry six of the ledger below); on the T223 side, 「人地【大】，地人【宋】【宮】，人地人【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "person-ground (Taishō), ground-person (Song, Palace), person-ground-person (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—a mirror image.
- Arhat written one way / written another way—this treatise reads 「阿羅呵」 tr. "arhat (one way of writing it)"〔T25 0718b25〕, while T223 reads 「阿羅訶」 tr. "arhat (another way of writing it)"〔T08 0411c02〕. Neither party has a collation note here; it belongs to a difference of characters in transmission, recorded as it is, not judging one party's reading by the other's.
- If there are—this treatise reads 「眾生不知是諸法自相空」 tr. "beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks"〔T25 0718b29〕, while T223 reads 「若有眾生不知是諸法自相空」 tr. "if there are beings who do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks"〔T08 0411c06〕. The T223 side has the note 「若有【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "if there are (Taishō), omitted (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—the three texts exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- Dānapāramitā / dānapāramitā with na—this treatise reads 「是菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜乃至十八不共法時」 tr. "when this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises dānapāramitā and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas"〔T25 0718c03〕, while T223 reads 「行檀那波羅蜜」 tr. "practises dānapāramitā (written with na)"〔T08 0411c10〕. The T223 side has the note 「那【大】，〔－〕【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "na (Taishō), omitted (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—the three texts exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note. The habits of rendering names in the two canons each form a system of their own; this is not a chance difference at one place in this chapter (an example already recorded in the same way in Chapter 62).
- Enter—this treatise reads 「盡受行是助道法；如金剛三昧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "receives and practises all these dharmas that aid the path; by the like-vajra samādhi he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T25 0718c04〕, while T223 reads 「入如金剛三昧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "enters the like-vajra samādhi and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T08 0411c11〕. The T223 side has the note 「入【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "enter (Taishō), omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace)"—the four texts exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- Obtain—this treatise reads 「得已，饒益眾生」 tr. "having obtained it, he enriches beings"〔T25 0718c06〕; on the T223 side the character 「得」 tr. "obtain" has the note 「得【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】」 tr. "obtain (Taishō), omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming)"; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- Constantly / surely—this treatise reads 「是利常不失故」 tr. "because this benefit is constantly not lost"〔T25 0718c06〕, while T223 reads 「是利當不失故」 tr. "because this benefit shall surely not be lost"〔T08 0411c13〕. The T223 side has the note 「當【大】，常【宮】【聖】」 tr. "surely (Taishō), constantly (Palace, Shōgozō)"—the two texts Palace and Shōgozō exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- Five destinies / six destinies (one of the most asymmetrical entries of this section)—this treatise reads 「得五道生死不？」 tr. "does he obtain the birth and death of the five destinies?"〔T25 0718c08〕, while T223 reads 「得六道生死不？」 tr. "does he obtain the birth and death of the six destinies?"〔T08 0411c15〕. On this treatise's side this place is the star entry 「五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊」 tr. "five (Taishō) [star] | six (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Ishiyama) [star]" (entry nine of the ledger below), five texts reading 「六」 tr. "six"; on the T223 side this place has no collation note at all, the base text reading 「六」 tr. "six" outright. One party has a variant reading in five texts while the other party has no dispute; this one-sidedness is recorded as it is.
- Subhūti said—this treatise reads 「佛言：『不得也！須菩提！』『世尊！得業若黑……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘He does not obtain them, Subhūti!’ ‘World-Honored One! Does he obtain deeds, whether black …’"〔T25 0718c08〕, while T223 has the four more Chinese characters 「須菩提言」 tr. "Subhūti said" at the head of the question〔T08 0411c15〕. On the T223 side only the character 「言」 tr. "said" in it has the note 「言【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "said (Taishō), omitted (Shōgozō)"; what the collation note covers is smaller than the difference between the two parties, recorded separately as it is.
- Whether black-and-white—this treatise reads 「得業若黑、若白、若不黑不白不？」 tr. "does he obtain deeds, whether black, whether white, whether neither black nor white?"〔T25 0718c09〕, while T223 has three more Chinese characters, reading 「若黑、若白、若黑白、若不黑不白不？」 tr. "whether black, whether white, whether black-and-white, whether neither black nor white?"〔T08 0411c16〕. On this treatise's side there is the note 「若白【大】｜若白若黑白【聖】【石】」 tr. "whether white (Taishō) | whether white, whether black-and-white (Shōgozō, Ishiyama)" (entry ten of the ledger below)—the reading formed by the two texts Shōgozō and Ishiyama is precisely the reading of the T223 base text; on the T223 side there is no collation note.
- This—this treatise reads 「云何說是地獄、餓鬼」 tr. "how does he speak of this, the hells, the hungry ghosts"〔T25 0718c10〕; on this treatise's side there is the note 「是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "this (Taishō) | omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace)" (entry eleven of the ledger below); at the same position on the T223 side there is also the note 「是【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "this (Taishō), omitted (Shōgozō)"〔T08 0411c18〕—both parties have collation notes and what is deleted is the same character, only the witnesses differ (on this treatise's side four texts, on T223's the Shōgozō text).
- The emptiness of self-nature / the emptiness of specific marks—this treatise reads 「是菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空」 tr. "this bodhisattva has heard from the buddhas that dharmas are empty of self-nature"〔T25 0718c16〕, while T223 reads 「聞諸法自相空」 tr. "has heard that dharmas are empty of specific marks"〔T08 0411c24〕. On this treatise's side there is the note 「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "nature (Taishō) | mark (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace)" (entry fourteen of the ledger below)—the four texts exactly agree with the T223 base text; on the T223 side there is no collation note.
- Ordinary people / common people—this treatise reads 「諸法不爾如凡夫人所著」 tr. "dharmas are not so, as ordinary people cling to them"〔T25 0718c18〕, while T223 reads 「如凡人所著」 tr. "as common people cling to them"〔T08 0411c25〕. On this treatise's side there is the note 「夫【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】」 tr. "fu (Taishō) | omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace)" (entry fifteen of the ledger below)—the four texts exactly agree with the T223 base text; on the T223 side there is no collation note.
- There is form / there is feeling—this treatise reads 「無色色相，無受想行識受想行識相」 tr. "no form yet the mark of form; no feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness yet the mark of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness"〔T25 0718c20〕, while T223 reads 「無色有色相，無受想行識有受想行識相」 tr. "no form, there is the mark of form; no feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, there is the mark of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness"〔T08 0411c27〕. Both parties have collation notes: on this treatise's side, 「色【大】｜有色【元】【明】」 tr. "form (Taishō) | there is form (Yuan, Ming)" (entry seventeen of the ledger below) and 「受【大】｜有受【元】【明】」 tr. "feeling (Taishō) | there is feeling (Yuan, Ming)" (entry nineteen of the ledger below); on the T223 side, 「有【大】＊，〔－〕【宮】【聖】＊」 tr. "there is (Taishō) [star], omitted (Palace, Shōgozō) [star]"〔T08 0411c27〕 and its star entry〔T08 0411c28〕—a mirror image.
- Suffering, the origin of suffering / suffering, origin—this treatise reads 「為眾生說四聖諦——苦、苦集、苦滅、苦滅道」 tr. "teaches the four noble truths for beings—suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, the path to the cessation of suffering"〔T25 0719a01〕, while T223 reads 「苦、集、苦滅、苦滅道」 tr. "suffering, origin, the cessation of suffering, the path to the cessation of suffering"〔T08 0412a05〕. Both parties have collation notes: on this treatise's side, 「苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】【石】」 tr. "suffering (Taishō) | omitted (Shōgozō, Ishiyama)" (entry twenty-two of the ledger below); on the T223 side, 「苦【大】，苦苦【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」 tr. "suffering (Taishō), suffering, suffering (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō)"—a mirror image.
- Delivered (two places)—this treatise reads 「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度；乃至非道聖諦得度，亦非道智得度。」 tr. "Not by the noble truth of suffering is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of suffering is one delivered; and so on up to: not by the noble truth of the path is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of the path is one delivered."〔T25 0719a09〕, while T223 reads 「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智。乃至非道聖諦得度，亦非道智。」 tr. "Not by the noble truth of suffering is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of suffering. And so on up to: not by the noble truth of the path is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of the path."〔T08 0412a12〕. Both parties have collation notes: on this treatise's side, 「得度【大】｜〔－〕【宮】【聖】【石】」 tr. "delivered (Taishō) | omitted (Palace, Shōgozō, Ishiyama)" and 「得度【大】｜〔－〕【石】」 tr. "delivered (Taishō) | omitted (Ishiyama)" (entries twenty-five and twenty-six of the ledger below); on the T223 side, 「智【大】＊，智得度【元】【明】＊」 tr. "knowledge (Taishō) [star], by knowledge is one delivered (Yuan, Ming) [star]"〔T08 0412a13〕 and its star entry〔T08 0412a14〕—a mirror image.
- The mark of equality (crossing at two places, before and after)—this treatise reads 「平等」 tr. "equality" at both places: 「何等是四聖諦平等？」 tr. "What is the equality of the four noble truths?"〔T25 0719a14〕 and 「是名四聖諦平等。」 tr. "This is named the equality of the four noble truths."〔T25 0719a16〕; T223 reads 「平等相」 tr. "the mark of equality" at both places〔T08 0412a19〕 before and after. The collation notes of the two parties are tied exactly to the two places, one each: on this treatise's side, 「須【大】｜相須【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」 tr. "xu (Taishō) | mark, xu (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō, Ishiyama)" (entry twenty-nine of the ledger below)—after 「平等」 tr. "equality" six texts add the character 「相」 tr. "mark", and the reading they form is precisely the reading of the T223 base text; on the T223 side, 「相【大】，〔－〕【聖】」 tr. "mark (Taishō), omitted (Shōgozō)"〔T08 0412a19〕—the Shōgozō text lacks 「相」 tr. "mark", and the reading it forms is precisely the reading of this treatise's base text. Each party collates one place, and they cross to form a mirror, recorded separately as it is.
- At the time—this treatise reads 「行般若波羅蜜時，如通達實諦故」 tr. "at the time of practising prajñāpāramitā, because he penetrates the real truth as it is"〔T25 0719a21〕, while T223 lacks the character 「時」 tr. "time"〔T08 0412a24〕. Neither party has a collation note here.
- Because—this treatise reads 「如通達實諦故，不墮聲聞、辟支佛地」 tr. "because he penetrates the real truth as it is, he does not fall into the ground of the śrāvaka or of the pratyekabuddha"〔T25 0719a21〕; on this treatise's side there is the note 「故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】」 tr. "because (Taishō) | omitted (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō)" (entry thirty of the ledger below); at the same position the T223 side has 「故」 tr. "because" and no collation note.
- The ground of the stage of nature / nature—this treatise reads 「是菩薩住性地中，能生四禪」 tr. "this bodhisattva, abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, can give rise to the four dhyānas"〔T25 0719a28〕, while T223 reads 「是菩薩住性中，能生四禪」 tr. "this bodhisattva, abiding in nature, can give rise to the four dhyānas"〔T08 0412b02〕. The T223 side has the note 「性【大】，性地【宋】【元】【明】【聖】」 tr. "nature (Taishō), the ground of the stage of nature (Song, Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō)"—the four texts exactly agree with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
- What emptiness / what contemplation of emptiness—this treatise reads 「『世尊！何等空？』」 tr. "‘World-Honored One! What emptiness?’"〔T25 0719b04〕, while T223 reads 「『世尊！何等空觀？』」 tr. "‘World-Honored One! What contemplation of emptiness?’"〔T08 0412b08〕. Neither party has a collation note here.
- The emptiness of self-nature / the emptiness of specific marks (in the answer)—this treatise reads 「佛言：『自性空。……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘The emptiness of self-nature. …’"〔T25 0719b04〕, while T223 reads 「佛言：『自相空。……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘The emptiness of specific marks. …’"〔T08 0412b08〕. On this treatise's side there is the note 「性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】」 tr. "nature (Taishō) | mark (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō, Ishiyama)" (entry thirty-two of the ledger below)—all six texts agree with the T223 base text, and this treatise's base text is here a solitary reading; on the T223 side there is no collation note. This entry goes the same way as the entry 「自性空／自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of self-nature / the emptiness of specific marks" above; the line of the character 「性」 tr. "nature" in this treatise's base text is its consistent reading, recorded as it is.
- For these beings / for beings—this treatise reads 「以方便力故，為是眾生說法。」 tr. "By the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma for these beings."〔T25 0719b11〕, while T223 reads 「以方便力故為眾生說法。」 tr. "By the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma for beings."〔T08 0412b16〕. On the T223 side the character 「為」 tr. "for" has the note 「為【大】，為是【宮】」 tr. "for (Taishō), for these (Palace)"—the Palace edition exactly agrees with this treatise's base text; on this treatise's side there is no collation note.
Comparison group (seven strings · the occurrence count in each of the two canons honestly recorded · uniquely matched). 「若一切法自相空，自相空法中，云何有差別之異」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty of specific marks, how, within dharmas empty of specific marks, can there be the difference of distinctions"〔T25 0718b21〕/〔T08 0411b28〕; 「無眾生、無業因緣、無果報」 tr. "no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution"〔T25 0718b28〕/〔T08 0411c05〕; 「四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空」 tr. "the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty"〔T25 0719a25〕/〔T08 0412b01〕; 「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮」 tr. "this is the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit"〔T25 0719a26〕/〔T08 0412b02〕; 「但順阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，觀諸法如實相」 tr. "only in accord with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he contemplates the mark of dharmas as it truly is"〔T25 0719b02〕/〔T08 0412b06〕; 「無性相是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the mark of being without nature is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T25 0719b07〕/〔T08 0412b11〕; 「但眾生不知不見諸法如實相」 tr. "it is only that beings do not know and do not see the mark of dharmas as it truly is"〔T25 0719b10〕/〔T08 0412b14〕. The streams of Chinese characters of these seven strings are each seen only once in the whole treatise T25n1509 and in the whole sūtra T08n0223 (this section rescanned each string independently in the base texts of both canons by the full-text method, not copying), uniquely matched, with no other chapter to confuse them with. Two strings whose occurrence count is not one are recorded in addition, so as not to make up the count with an estimate: 「是四聖諦平等」 tr. "the equality of these four noble truths" is seen three times within this chapter of this treatise〔T25 0719a11〕〔T25 0719a14〕〔T25 0719a16〕, and also only these three times in the whole treatise; the two Chinese characters 「四諦」 tr. "the four truths" are seen fifteen times in the sūtra and treatise text of this chapter (chapter-title line included), and 「四聖諦」 tr. "the four noble truths" eleven times, the two names used side by side but distributed differently—the sūtra section uses only 「四聖諦」 tr. "the four noble truths"; the first part of the treatise section, following the sūtra, also uses 「四聖諦」 tr. "the four noble truths", and after that it mostly uses 「四諦」 tr. "the four truths", recorded separately as it is. Judged to be 「同品異名」 tr. "the same chapter under different names" (the chapter bodies are almost the same text character by character; for the difference between the two parties to the chapter name see above). The 【論】 layer of this treatise is a structural expansion belonging to the form of a treatise; the sūtra explained has no such layer, and it is not a variant.
V. The Prajñā Eye
The eye of this chapter lies in how a 「差別」 tr. "difference" and an 「平等」 tr. "equality" stand side by side—since within the emptiness of specific marks there are no beings, no deeds, and no retribution, why are the differences from the hells up to the buddhas still spoken of? And since the four noble truths are a teaching the Buddha himself spoke, why is it also said 「是四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because these four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa"? Its meaning can be summed up in five layers.
First, the difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva lies not in the dharmas practised but in whether or not one is all-pervading. At the opening of the scroll the sūtra answers Subhūti's question with 「菩薩法亦是佛法」 tr. "the bodhisattva's dharmas are also the dharmas of the Buddha"〔T25 0718b14〕, the difference lying only in 「佛以一念相應慧知一切法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the Buddha, having known all dharmas by the wisdom associated with a single thought, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"〔T25 0718b16〕. The treatise sets out its substance: 「色等諸法行處是同，但智慧利鈍有異。」 tr. "The places where form and the other dharmas are practised are the same; only the sharpness or dullness of wisdom differs."〔T25 0719b19〕, 「菩薩雖如實行六波羅蜜而未能周遍，未能入一切門，是故不名為佛。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises the six perfections as they truly are, he has not yet been able to be all-pervading, not yet able to enter every gate; therefore he is not named Buddha."〔T25 0719b20〕. This is why the simile of the moon of the fourteenth and fifteenth day is set up—not the distinction between bright and not bright, but the distinction between being able to move the sea and not being able to move the sea. The sūtra further divides them by 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction" and 「解脫道中無一切闇蔽」 tr. "within the path of liberation there is no obscuration of any kind"〔T25 0718b20〕: the bodhisattva walks on the path of severing the defilements, while the Buddha is already beyond the severance of the defilements.
Second, difference is set up precisely because beings do not know emptiness. The sūtra's question is at its steepest: 「如諸人不可得，業因緣亦不可得，果報亦不可得！」 tr. "Since these persons are unfindable, the causes and conditions of deeds are also unfindable, and retribution is also unfindable!"〔T25 0718b26〕; the Buddha's answer does not shy away from its steepness—「如是！如是！如汝所言，自相空法中，無眾生、無業因緣、無果報。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! As you say, within dharmas empty of specific marks there are no beings, no causes and conditions of deeds, no retribution."〔T25 0718b27〕, and only then turns out a sentence: 「須菩提！眾生不知是諸法自相空，是眾生作業因緣」 tr. "Subhūti! Beings do not know that these dharmas are empty of specific marks; these beings make the causes and conditions of deeds"〔T25 0718b29〕. Difference is not upon the dharmas; it is upon the mind of those who do not know the dharmas. The treatise pushes this to the utmost by a counter-proof: if beings themselves knew that dharmas are empty of nature, then 「菩薩不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提意，亦不於六道中拔出眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva would not arouse the intent of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor would he pull beings out from within the six destinies"〔T25 0720a20〕—「譬如無病則不須藥，無闇則不須燈明。」 tr. "Just as without disease there is no need of medicine, and without darkness no need of the light of a lamp."〔T25 0720a22〕. The whole bodhisattva path exists only because of this one 「不知」 tr. "not knowing".
Third, why the Buddha speaks only of the four truths and not of the eighteen unshared dharmas. The treatise answers in the plainest of words: 「眾生所畏急者，無過於苦；為除苦已，然後示以佛道。」 tr. "What beings fear most urgently is nothing more than suffering; once suffering has been removed for them, only then are they shown the Buddha path."〔T25 0720b18〕, 「如人重病，先以除病為急；然後以寶物、衣服莊嚴其身。」 tr. "As when a person is gravely ill, removing the disease comes first as the urgent thing; only afterwards does one adorn his body with precious things and clothing."〔T25 0720b19〕. The heads of the four truths the treatise brings down one by one to their real place: suffering is 「受五受眾身是一切苦本，性即是苦」 tr. "receiving a body of the five aggregates of clinging is the root of all suffering, and its very nature is suffering"〔T25 0720b21〕; origin is 「愛等諸煩惱」 tr. "craving and the other afflictions"〔T25 0720b23〕; cessation is 「若人欲捨苦，先當斷愛，愛斷苦則滅」 tr. "if a person wishes to relinquish suffering, he should first sever craving; when craving is severed, suffering ceases"〔T25 0720b25〕; the path is the eightfold right path's 「於八聖道分中為正見，餘七事助成發起，能斷一切法中愛」 tr. "within the eightfold noble path it is right view; the other seven matters help to accomplish it and set it going, and it can sever craving within all dharmas"〔T25 0720b28〕. And why the four truths can gather everything in, the sūtra itself states the reason: 「一切助道善法皆入四聖諦中，用是助道善法故，分別有三寶。」 tr. "All the wholesome dharmas that aid the path enter into the four noble truths; by means of these wholesome dharmas that aid the path, the Three Jewels are distinguished."〔T25 0719a03〕—the four truths are not one portion of the Buddha-dharma; they are the place where the Buddha-dharma is gathered in whole; the reason the Three Jewels stand distinct also issues from here.
Fourth, both ‘delivered by the truth’ and ‘delivered by the knowledge’ fail, and yet truth and knowledge cannot be parted. The sūtra's answer is utterly decisive: 「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度」 tr. "not by the noble truth of suffering is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of suffering is one delivered"〔T25 0719a09〕. Fearing that people will take this question as coarse, the treatise first lays out its distinctions: the question is really 「見苦等四諦體故滅？為用智故滅？」 tr. "Is it because one sees the substance of the four truths, suffering and the rest, that cessation comes? Or is it by using knowledge that cessation comes?"〔T25 0720c09〕. Then it refutes both sides—if by the truth alone, then 「一切眾生牛羊等亦應得道！」 tr. "all beings, oxen, sheep, and the rest, should also obtain the path!"〔T25 0720c11〕 (suffering is what beings have in common); if by the knowledge alone, then 「離苦則無智」 tr. "apart from suffering there is no knowledge"〔T25 0720c12〕 (without the object contemplated, knowledge has nothing from which to stand). So it gathers it up: 「苦諦、苦智和合故生」 tr. "it is born because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together"〔T25 0720c13〕. Why it refutes both together, the treatise goes one layer further: 「是苦等四法皆從緣生，虛妄不實，無有自性故不名為實，不實故云何能滅？」 tr. "These four dharmas, suffering and the rest, are all born from conditions and are false and unreal; because they are without self-nature they are not named real; since they are not real, how could they bring cessation?"〔T25 0720c18〕. Then it sets up a most important objection: the two truths of suffering and origin may be said to be false and deceptive, but the truth of the path is without outflows and the truth of cessation is unconditioned, so why are they too false and deceptive? The treatise answers: 「將入無餘涅槃，亦知道諦虛誑，以空空三昧等捨離道諦，如說栰喻。」 tr. "About to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, one also knows that the truth of the path is false and deceptive, and by the emptiness-of-emptiness samādhi and the rest one relinquishes the truth of the path, as the simile of the raft says."〔T25 0720c24〕, while of the truth of cessation, 「離有為，無無為，因有為故說無為。」 tr. "Apart from the conditioned there is no unconditioned; it is because of the conditioned that the unconditioned is spoken of."〔T25 0720c26〕, 「苦滅如燈滅，不應戲論求其處所。」 tr. "The cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp; one should not seek its whereabouts in idle discourse."〔T25 0720c27〕—the falseness of the four truths is not a denial of the four truths; it is not allowing one to set up upon the four truths one more reality that can be grasped.
Fifth, the pass into the bodhisattva's position lies in 「空亦空」 tr. "emptiness too is empty", without setting up a separate contemplation. The sūtra gives its mark: 「見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」 tr. "Sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty."〔T25 0719a24〕. The treatise sets a question: why does one enter the bodhisattva's position without 「空亦空觀」 tr. "the contemplation that emptiness too is empty" being spoken of? Its answer is utterly brief: 「若說諸法空，即是空，空亦空；若是空不空，不名為一切空。」 tr. "If one says that dharmas are empty, this is then empty: emptiness too is empty; if this emptiness were not empty, it would not be named the emptiness of all."〔T25 0721a15〕—if the phrase 「一切空」 tr. "the emptiness of all" is truly said to the end, 「空亦空」 tr. "emptiness too is empty" is already within it and need not be set up separately. And the emptiness of what is called contemplating emptiness, the sūtra at its end names 「自性空」 tr. "the emptiness of self-nature"〔T25 0719b04〕; the treatise then ranks it: 「內、外空等是小空，畢竟空、無所得空等是甚深空，自相空是中空。」 tr. "Inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest are the small emptinesses; ultimate emptiness, the emptiness of nothing to be attained, and the rest are the very deep emptinesses; the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness."〔T25 0721b06〕, and the reason for taking the middle lies in 「自相有理破故而心不沒，而能入甚深空中。」 tr. "Because specific marks have a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink, and it can enter into the very deep emptiness."〔T25 0721b07〕—the emptiness of specific marks still has a principle that can be refuted, so when the practitioner refutes it his mind does not sink; if the mind sinks, the deep emptiness cannot be entered. At the end the chapter returns to skilful means: since beings cannot know and see the mark as it truly is, the bodhisattva, after 「得無生忍法，入菩薩位，通達菩薩第一義諦」 tr. "obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva's position, and penetrates the bodhisattva's truth of the highest meaning"〔T25 0721b16〕, still does not state the dharma of emptiness directly, but 「當成就一切善法、莊嚴身三十二相，引導眾生」 tr. "shall accomplish all wholesome dharmas and adorn his body with the thirty-two marks, to lead beings on"〔T25 0721b21〕—because 「若我直說是法，則不信不受，則破壞法，墮於地獄！」 tr. "If I were to state this dharma directly, they would not believe it or accept it, and so would destroy the Dharma and fall into hell!"〔T25 0721b20〕. The whole chapter begins by asking about difference and here still falls back upon difference: in the highest meaning there is no difference, and yet in the place where the Dharma is taught there cannot but be difference; this is precisely why this chapter's two names (The Four Truths / Difference) both stand.
VI. Divergent Readings of the Masters
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa has had no tradition of a full commentary text by text; the ancient masters' citations and explanations are as a rule partial, according to what was at hand. For this chapter two masters' readings are recorded: on the sūtra explained, Jizang's commentary preserves a complete dedicated chapter; on this treatise, Huiying's commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter (its extant text stops far before this chapter; see below); Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises cites this chapter genuinely at three places, a rare instance among the last several chapters; the books of Zhiyi and Zhanran of the Tiantai line have zero hits. This section records the correspondence between what they comment on and cite and this chapter, without judging the interpretations of the masters as higher or lower.
Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451). His text-by-text commentary on "Difference" of the sūtra explained begins at 「差別品第八十四」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-four, Difference"〔X24n0451 0337b10〕 and runs to〔X24n0451 0338a13〕, before the next chapter, 「七譬品第八十五」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-five, The Seven Similes"〔X24n0451 0338a14〕, begins, covering the whole of this chapter's sūtra (the general table at the head of the scroll also lists 「差別品第八十四」 tr. "Chapter Eighty-four, Difference", at〔X24n0451 0195c16〕; it belongs to the table-of-contents layer and is not counted together with the sectional analysis of the main text). Six things in it can be recorded.
First, the large division and the place of this chapter—「此下是第三明方便得果。四品為二：第一三品明得菩提果，如化一品明得涅槃果。」 tr. "From here on is the third: it clarifies obtaining the fruit by skilful means. The four chapters make two: the first, three chapters, clarifies obtaining the fruit of awakening; the one chapter Like a Conjuration clarifies obtaining the fruit of nirvāṇa."〔X24n0451 0337b11〕: Jizang joins this chapter and the three chapters after it, "The Seven Similes", "Equality", and "Like a Conjuration", into one section, and this chapter stands at its head. Below it he further sets up a fourfold sectional analysis of this chapter: 「初中為四：第一明佛菩薩所行雖同而有漏不滿異之」 tr. "The first is in four: the first clarifies that though what the Buddha and the bodhisattva practise is the same, they are distinguished by the outflows and the not-yet-full"〔X24n0451 0337b15〕, 「第三佛雖不得六道為眾生故證得菩提廣說四諦，第四明稟教得悟更能傳化也。」 tr. "the third, that though the Buddha does not obtain the six destinies, for the sake of beings he realises awakening and expounds the four truths at length; the fourth clarifies that receiving the teaching and obtaining awakening, one can further pass on the transformation."〔X24n0451 0337b16〕—the headings of the four divisions correspond to the four rounds of question and answer in this chapter's sūtra text.
Second, the difference between the Buddha and the bodhisattva—「答：所行是同，但當現為異也。」 tr. "Answer: what they practise is the same; only in what is now manifest do they differ."〔X24n0451 0337b21〕: Jizang sets up the difference by ‘manifestation’, while this treatise sets up the difference by 「周遍」 tr. "all-pervading" and 「入一切門」 tr. "entering every gate"〔T25 0719b20〕; what the two masters stress is not the same, recorded side by side without judgement.
Third, the gathering up of difference and equality—「俗有差別，道門無差別也。」 tr. "The worldly has difference; in the gate of the path there is no difference."〔X24n0451 0337c05〕: he gathers up the questions and answers of this chapter by the two truths. This treatise at this point only says 「以眾生實不知諸法自性空故，不得脫五道生死」 tr. "because beings truly do not know that dharmas are empty of self-nature, they do not obtain liberation from the birth and death of the five destinies"〔T25 0718c15〕, and does not divide it by the names of the two truths; this is a framework that Jizang brings out himself, recorded separately as it is.
Fourth, the sūtra text he relied on reads 「六道」 tr. "the six destinies"—「白佛得菩提已得六道不者，此就以難所說也。」 tr. "As for ‘said to the Buddha: having obtained awakening, does he obtain the six destinies?’, this is said by way of an objection."〔X24n0451 0337c07〕, and below it he says again 「是故今問得菩提時見六道不？」 tr. "Therefore he now asks: at the time of obtaining awakening, does he see the six destinies?"〔X24n0451 0337c08〕: the sūtra text Jizang relied on reads 「六道」 tr. "the six destinies" at this place, agreeing with the T223 base text and differing from the 「五道」 tr. "the five destinies" of this treatise's base text (see Section IV)—an ancient master's commentary text can serve as a collateral proof of how a sūtra text read; recorded without judgement.
Fifth, the sequence of the four truths and the effacing of object and knowledge—「說諦之中初說四諦，次說一乘實諦，亦初說世諦，後說第一義諦。」 tr. "Within the teaching of the truths, first the four truths are taught, next the real truth of the One Vehicle; also, first worldly truth is taught, afterwards the truth of the highest meaning."〔X24n0451 0337c15〕, 「佛答：泯其境智二見令悟不二，即緣觀俱寂方得道也。」 tr. "The Buddha answers: he effaces their two views of object and knowledge, causing them to awaken to non-duality; that is, only when the condition and the contemplation are both quiescent is the path obtained."〔X24n0451 0337c22〕—he explains 「非苦聖諦得度，亦非苦智得度」 tr. "not by the noble truth of suffering is one delivered, nor by the knowledge of suffering is one delivered" by ‘effacing the two views of object and knowledge’, which refutes the same thing as this treatise's 「苦諦、苦智和合故生」 tr. "it is born because the truth of suffering and the knowledge of suffering come together"〔T25 0720c13〕 but in different words: this treatise refutes the one-sided taking of either, Jizang refutes the two views, recorded separately as it is. Jizang further explains 「所攝／所不攝」 tr. "contained / not contained": 「四聖諦攝不攝者，三諦攝有為盡滅諦，但攝數緣故攝餘二也。」 tr. "As for what the four noble truths contain and do not contain: three truths contain the conditioned; the truth of cessation, the exhaustion, contains only the condition of reckoning, and so it contains the other two."〔X24n0451 0338a05〕—taking what lies outside 「數緣盡」 tr. "the exhaustion through the condition of reckoning" as what is not contained, pointing to the same thing as this treatise's 「非四諦者，虛空、非數緣盡」 tr. "as for what is not the four truths: space and the exhaustion not through the condition of reckoning"〔T25 0721a12〕.
Sixth, his citation of the treatise on the ground of the stage of nature and the emptiness of the middle way—「住是性地不墮頂者，論云菩菩薩位名性地也。」 tr. "As for ‘abiding in this ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit’: the treatise says that the bo-bodhisattva's position is named the ground of the stage of nature."〔X24n0451 0338a07〕 (「菩菩薩」 tr. "bo-bodhisattva" is a repeated character in the base text, recorded as it stands), 「如小乘四善根名性地，住四善根必得正位，菩薩住性地必作佛」 tr. "As in the Small Vehicle the four wholesome roots are named the ground of the stage of nature, and abiding in the four wholesome roots one surely obtains the right position, so the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature surely becomes a Buddha"〔X24n0451 0338a08〕—the same comparison as this treatise's 「如聲聞法中，燸法、頂法、忍法、世間第一法，名為性地」 tr. "as in the śrāvaka's dharma, the dharma of warmth, the dharma of the summit, the dharma of acceptance, and the highest worldly dharma are named the ground of the stage of nature"〔T25 0721a18〕. He further cites this treatise's passage on the emptiness of the middle way as 「下明菩薩用自相空者，論中此是中道空，內外等三空為淺空，畢竟空為深空。」 tr. "Below it makes clear that the bodhisattva uses the emptiness of specific marks: in the treatise this is the emptiness of the middle way; the three emptinesses, inner, outer, and the rest, are the shallow emptinesses; ultimate emptiness is the deep emptiness."〔X24n0451 0338a10〕, 「此是中道空，有理破故心不沒也。」 tr. "This is the emptiness of the middle way; because there is a principle that can be refuted, the mind does not sink."〔X24n0451 0338a11〕—this treatise reads 「小空」 tr. "the small emptinesses" and 「甚深空」 tr. "the very deep emptinesses", while Jizang reads 「淺空」 tr. "the shallow emptinesses" and 「深空」 tr. "the deep emptiness"; this treatise reads 「內、外空等」 tr. "inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and the rest", while Jizang reads 「內外等三空」 tr. "the three emptinesses, inner, outer, and the rest"—both the wording and the number counted differ slightly, recorded side by side without judgement.
Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791) · lacking an explanation of this chapter (recorded as it is). Huiying's commentary is the only ancient commentary on this treatise, and survives only as a fragmentary scroll; its extant text stops at the one chapter 「釋大方便品第六十九(不完)」 tr. "Commentary on the Chapter on the Great Skilful Means, the Sixty-ninth (incomplete)" and ends at〔X46n0791 0917b12〕—this chapter (the eighty-fourth) lies far after its extant end point. This section independently searched back through the whole file for the five strings 「差別品」 tr. "Difference", 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths", 「四諦所攝」 tr. "contained by the four truths", 「得無所有」 tr. "obtains what is without anything existent", and 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction", all with zero hits—this belongs to a lacking explanation (the text does not survive), not to ‘no bearing’, distinguished and recorded as it is.
Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises (X46n0784) · three genuine citations (all under the name 「差別品」 tr. "Difference"). Junzheng has three word-for-word citations of this chapter, a rare instance among the last several chapters, recorded entry by entry.
First, he cites this chapter's passage on entering the bodhisattva's position to settle the position of the 「頂」 tr. "summit"—「差別品云：得無所有已，見一切法空，四諦所攝法皆空。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: having obtained what is without anything existent, he sees that all dharmas are empty; the dharmas contained by the four truths are all empty."〔X46n0784 0566a06〕, 「若見觀是時，便入菩薩位中。是為菩薩位性地中，不從墮頂。」 tr. "If he sees and contemplates, at this time he then enters into the bodhisattva's position. This is the bodhisattva's position in the ground of the stage of nature, not from a falling of the summit."〔X46n0784 0566a07〕—corresponding to this treatise's 「得無所有法已，見一切法空——四聖諦所攝、四聖諦所不攝法皆空。」 tr. "Having obtained the dharma without anything existent, he sees that all dharmas are empty—the dharmas contained by the four noble truths and the dharmas not contained by the four noble truths are all empty."〔T25 0719a24〕 and 「是為菩薩住性地中，不從頂墮。」 tr. "This is the bodhisattva abiding in the ground of the stage of nature, not falling from the summit."〔T25 0719a26〕. Junzheng reads 「四諦所攝法皆空」 tr. "the dharmas contained by the four truths are all empty" and leaves out the branch 「所不攝」 tr. "not contained"; he also reads 「不從墮頂」 tr. "not from a falling of the summit" while this treatise reads 「不從頂墮」 tr. "not falling from the summit"—differences of abridged citation and of word order, recorded separately as they are. The purpose of his citation is to set up his own account: 「觀經文意，應是六地終心為頂也。」 tr. "Contemplating the intent of the sūtra text, the summit should be the final mind of the sixth ground."〔X46n0784 0566a10〕—this is Junzheng's own judgement of the order of positions; this treatise has no such matching.
Second and third, he cites this chapter's two paths, without obstruction and of liberation, to discuss the severing of the defilements—「差別品云：菩薩斷無礙道行，佛於解脫道行。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: the bodhisattva severs and practises in the path without obstruction; the Buddha practises in the path of liberation."〔X46n0784 0571a19〕, 「差別品云：菩薩無礙道中行，諸佛解脫中行。」 tr. "The chapter Difference says: the bodhisattva practises within the path without obstruction; the buddhas practise within liberation."〔X46n0784 0572c05〕—both corresponding to this treatise's 「菩薩摩訶薩無礙道中行，是名菩薩摩訶薩；解脫道中無一切闇蔽，是為佛。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises within the path without obstruction; this is named a bodhisattva-mahāsattva; within the path of liberation there is no obscuration of any kind; this is the Buddha."〔T25 0718b19〕. The two citations are of the same sentence but their wording is not uniform: the former reads 「斷無礙道行」 tr. "severs and practises in the path without obstruction" (adding the character 「斷」 tr. "severs", which belongs to Junzheng's restating), the latter reads 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction" (closer to the original text of this treatise), recorded separately as it is. Both citations are used to handle the dispute ‘whether the vajra mind severs the defilements completely’: 「開善等諸師傳述金心斷或未盡，唯佛菩提方盡。」 tr. "Kaishan and the other masters transmit that the vajra mind's severance of the defilements is not yet complete, and that only the Buddha's awakening completes it."〔X46n0784 0572c04〕—citing this chapter as sūtra proof for his order of the severance of the defilements belongs to a dispute Junzheng himself inherits; this treatise has no bearing on it here, recorded without judgement.
Distinguishing books of the same name (four false positives for 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" · distinguished entry by entry). The three Chinese characters 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" are seen four more times in Junzheng's book, none of them this chapter; this section checked the scene of each entry (who, to whom, on what principle) and distinguishes them as follows:〔X46n0784 0576a07〕 「引大經四諦品云：佛告迦葉」 tr. "citing the chapter on the Four Truths of the Great Sūtra: ‘The Buddha told Kāśyapa’"—the one addressed is 「迦葉」 tr. "Kāśyapa", while the one addressed in this chapter's sūtra section is Subhūti, and 「大經」 tr. "the Great Sūtra" is the commentators' customary name for the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, belonging to that sūtra's teaching on the four truths;〔X46n0784 0577a23〕 「中論？四諦品云：佛依二諦說法」 tr. "the Middle Treatise? The chapter on the Four Truths says: the Buddha teaches the Dharma relying on the two truths",〔X46n0784 0583c10〕 「又四諦品云：諸法雖無生，而有二諦」 tr. "Again, the chapter on the Four Truths says: though dharmas are without arising, there are the two truths", and the re-citation of the same sentence at〔X46n0784 0583c18〕—what these three places concern is all the meaning of 「二諦」 tr. "the two truths", pointing to "Contemplating the Four Truths" (the twenty-fourth chapter) of the Middle Treatise, not this chapter. In Jizang's book too 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths" is seen once,〔X24n0451 0317a06〕 「如中論？四諦品破性有業無得也」 tr. "as the chapter on the Four Truths of the Middle Treatise? refutes deeds existing by nature, there being no obtaining", likewise belonging to the Middle Treatise, not this chapter. A hit on the surface of the words is not the same as citing this chapter; the distinction is recorded entry by entry, and none was wrongly entered.
Zhiyi's Great Calming and Contemplation (T46n1911) · Profound Meaning of the Lotus (T33n1716) · Zhanran's Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus (T33n1717) · Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation (T46n1912) · zero hits (recorded as it is). This section independently searched back through the whole of the four files for the strings 「差別品」 tr. "Difference", 「四諦品」 tr. "The Four Truths", 「四聖諦平等」 tr. "the equality of the four noble truths", 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction", 「自相空是中空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness", and 「向道得果」 tr. "heading toward the path, obtaining the fruit". Of these, 「差別品」 tr. "Difference" has zero hits in all four files. There are in addition four hits on the surface of the words, and after checking the context entry by entry all are judged not to cite this chapter:〔T46n1911 0052c05〕 「雖是大乘無量四諦所攝，猶是思議之境」 tr. "though it is contained by the immeasurable four truths of the Great Vehicle, it is still an object of conceivable thought"—Tiantai's own usage of the four truths of the four teachings, naming no sūtra or treatise;〔T33n1717 0852a07〕 「約此四諦，為是何教四諦所攝？」 tr. "As to these four truths, by the four truths of which teaching are they contained?"—likewise belonging to the judgement of the four teachings;〔T33n1716 0691c04〕 「昔第九無礙道中行，名菩薩。伏道不斷，未出三界，故名因位……」 tr. "Formerly, practising within the ninth path without obstruction is named bodhisattva. The path of subduing does not sever, he has not yet left the three realms; therefore it is named the causal position …" and its re-use in the same passage at〔T33n1716 0691c13〕—Tiantai's own term for an order of positions, 「第九無礙道」 tr. "the ninth path without obstruction", the same in wording as this chapter's 「無礙道中行」 tr. "practises within the path without obstruction" but different in what it points to;〔T33n1717 0850b22〕 「又如《思益．四諦品》中云：『四諦者，謂世間、世間集、世間滅、世間滅道。』」 tr. "Again, as is said in the chapter on the Four Truths of the Siyi: ‘The four truths are namely the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path to the cessation of the world.’"—what is cited is the chapter "The Four Truths" of the Siyi Sūtra, a book of the same name, not a citation of this chapter. This chapter has no citation by name in the Tiantai books; candidates are not entered, and the negative result is recorded as it is.
VII. Cross-reading and Further Resonances
The lines of meaning of this chapter that carry on from before and after are four, all recorded by this section, without settling the reading on anyone's behalf.
First, the further resonance in the chapter order of ‘the bodhisattva's dharmas are precisely the Buddha's dharmas’ (tied by an ancient master · not stated by the treatise-author himself). This chapter's opening question, 「若是諸法是菩薩法，何等是佛法？」 tr. "If these dharmas are the bodhisattva's dharmas, what are the Buddha's dharmas?"〔T25 0718b12〕—its three Chinese characters 「是諸法」 tr. "these dharmas" point to what was said in the preceding chapter. Jizang's commentary at this point ties it explicitly to the preceding chapter: 「上品明一切菩薩法是菩提，佛令菩薩如佛行六度乃至一切種智，是故今問。」 tr. "The chapter above made clear that all the bodhisattva's dharmas are awakening, and the Buddha had the bodhisattva practise as the Buddha does the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; therefore he now asks."〔X24n0451 0337b19〕—what is pointed to is precisely the preceding chapter, "Certainty", Chapter 83. Within the range of this chapter, this treatise has no explicit text pointing back to the preceding chapter (this section checked this chapter character by character for 「畢定」 tr. "certainty", with zero hits); hence this tie belongs to Jizang's sectional analysis and is not stated by the treatise-author himself, recorded separately as it is.
Second, the four chapters ‘Difference—The Seven Similes—Equality—Like a Conjuration’ as one section (set up by Jizang · together with a matching to the three virtues). Jizang joins this chapter and the three chapters after it into one section, 「方便得果」 tr. "obtaining the fruit by skilful means" (see Section VI); at the head of his commentary on "Like a Conjuration", Chapter 87, he further cites another master's matching: 「有人言：差別品明菩提即智果，謂般若也」 tr. "Someone says: the chapter Difference makes clear awakening, that is, the fruit of knowledge, namely prajñā"〔X24n0451 0339b20〕—matching this chapter to the knowledge-fruit of awakening, the chapter The Seven Similes to the fruit of liberation, and the chapter Equality to the fruit of the Dharma body. On this matching Jizang sets down his own word, 「今明難作如此義，亦復可然。」 tr. "Now, to make clear that it is hard to construe the meaning in this way—yet it too may be so."〔X24n0451 0339b23〕, and does not take it over wholly. This treatise has no such matching to the three virtues; it belongs to another master's meaning recorded in Jizang's book, and its connection is recorded without settling the reading on anyone's behalf.
Third, Jizang pointing back to this chapter in a later chapter (a hard link · word for word). When commenting on "Equality", Chapter 86, Jizang cites this chapter's text directly as evidence: 「佛上差別品中，何得言菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空也」 tr. "In the chapter Difference above, how could the Buddha say that the bodhisattva has heard from the buddhas that dharmas are empty of self-nature?"〔X24n0451 0339a14〕—what is cited is precisely this chapter's sūtra text, 「是菩薩從諸佛所聞諸法自性空，發意求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "This bodhisattva has heard from the buddhas that dharmas are empty of self-nature, and arouses the intent to seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."〔T25 0718c16〕. This is an ancient master using this chapter's text to press an objection against the text of the next chapter, and the lines of meaning of the two chapters are joined by this one sentence; the carrying-on is recorded. Further worth recording: Jizang here cites it as 「自性空」 tr. "the emptiness of self-nature", agreeing with this treatise's base text and differing from the 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks" of the T223 base text on which he is commenting (see Section IV); how an ancient master's citation reads need not agree with the text on which he comments, recorded separately as it is.
Fourth, links hung in the treasury (stable citation · soft citation). This chapter's judgement 「四聖諦平等故，我說即是涅槃」 tr. "because the four noble truths are equal, I say that this is precisely nirvāṇa", its question 「自相空法中，云何有差別之異」 tr. "within dharmas empty of specific marks, how can there be the difference of distinctions" with its answer 「眾生不知」 tr. "beings do not know", the heads of the four deeds and the gloss of deeds without outflows as 「非白非黑」 tr. "neither white nor black", the simile 「苦滅如燈滅」 tr. "the cessation of suffering is like the going out of a lamp", and the rank of 「自相空是中空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks is the middle emptiness" among the eighteen emptinesses, are what later ages base themselves on in discussing the mutual identity of the two truths and in discussing how the four truths and the meaning of emptiness contain each other; they are settled as a stable citation〔T25n1509 四諦品·卷九十四〕; the places in the other texts that cite this treatise are not yet in final draft, so the citation is soft, awaiting their word-for-word checking. This belongs to the further resonance of the meaning of prajñā running down through the gates of the teaching, recorded without judgement.
VIII. Witnesses and Editions
The base text of this chapter is Fascicle 94 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa〔T25 0718b11–0721b27〕 (the main text of the chapter body begins from the chapter title〔T25 0718b11〕 and ends with the sentence 「使皆度脫」 tr. "causes them all to obtain deliverance", running to〔T25 0721b26〕; the fascicle-end title 「大智度論卷第九十四」 tr. "Fascicle 94 of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa ends here."〔T25 0721b27〕 is tied after the end of the chapter, and the next chapter's title〔T25 0721c02〕 begins anew at the head of Fascicle 95); the collation text for the sūtra explained is "Difference" of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra〔T08 0411b15–0412b16〕; the ancient-master commentary text for collation is Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra (X24n0451, covering the sūtra explained at〔X24n0451 0337b10–0338a13〕); Huiying's Commentary (X46n0791) lacks an explanation of this chapter, Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises (X46n0784) cites it genuinely at three places, and the four Tiantai books have zero hits (all see Section VI). The variant collation notes follow the Taishō collation, covering the differences between the Taishō base text and the Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Shōgozō, and Ishiyama (the Ishiyama-dera manuscript) texts—within this chapter's ledger of eighty-six entries no modern collation entries of the Korean Canon, the Qisha canon, or the CBETA emendation layer are seen, nor does the Shōgozō B enter the ledger; the witnesses involved are only the seven, 【大】【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】.
The note on the chapter title (the basis for the two parties to the chapter name, the Ishiyama text's step of −1, and the Ishiyama text's record of the fascicle head · listed separately · not entered in the ledger of eighty-six entries). The note on the chapter title〔T25 0718b11〕 (the base text's note number 0718016), the full text of the base text as it stands: 「大智度論【大】，〔－〕【明】，卷第九十五首【石】，石山本無造號譯號，〔大智…四〕十二宇－【聖】，（（大智…四））十二字＝（（大智度經品第八十三四諦品卷九十五））十六字【石】」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa (Taishō), omitted (Ming), head of Fascicle Ninety-five (Ishiyama), the Ishiyama text has no author's or translator's signature, [Mahā … four] twelve characters omitted (Shōgozō), ((Mahā … four)) twelve characters = ((Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, chapter the eighty-third, the chapter The Four Truths, Fascicle Ninety-five)) sixteen characters (Ishiyama)"—this is the basis for the Ishiyama text's step of −1, the Ishiyama text's record of the fascicle head, and the Ishiyama text's lacking the signatures of author and translator (for the analysis see Section IV). The anchor of this note is of the point-anchor type (with no start-and-end pair), and so it is not entered in the ledger of eighty-six entries but listed here separately, and marked explicitly. The other two notes on the chapter title (on the chapter name 「四諦品／差別品」 tr. "The Four Truths / Difference" and on the chapter number 「八十四」 tr. "eighty-four") are of the range-anchor type and are entered in the ledger, as entries one and two of the ledger below.
Nine stars · all shared within the chapter itself (listed separately). Within the range of this chapter there are nine star anchors; this section resolved, star by star, the target of the corresponding collation entry and located the chapter it belongs to: the targets of all nine lie within the range of this chapter, not one across chapters:
- Seven tied to the character 「五」 tr. "five"—〔T25 0718c08〕〔T25 0718c22〕〔T25 0719a05〕〔T25 0719c26〕〔T25 0719c27〕〔T25 0719c28〕〔T25 0720a01〕, whose corresponding notes all point to the note at〔T25 0718c06〕 (entry eight of the ledger below), which in the base text as it stands reads 「五【大】＊，六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊」 tr. "five (Taishō) [star], six (Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, Ishiyama) [star]"—that is, the variant reading ‘five destinies / six destinies’ is hung back at seven places in this chapter onto a single place of definition by the star mechanism (see Section II).
- One tied to the character 「相」 tr. "mark"—〔T25 0718c20〕, whose corresponding note points to the note on the same line (entry sixteen of the ledger below), in the base text as it stands 「相【大】＊，想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊」 tr. "mark (Taishō) [star], perception (Yuan, Ming, Shōgozō, Ishiyama) [star]". This star and its target lie on the same line,〔T25 0718c20〕, two entries on one line (one the note itself, one the star); entries sixteen and eighteen of the ledger below are these.
- One tied to the character 「妄」 tr. "false"—〔T25 0721a06〕, whose corresponding note points to the note at〔T25 0720c18〕 (entry sixty-six of the ledger below), in the base text as it stands 「妄【大】＊，誑【元】【明】＊」 tr. "false (Taishō) [star], deceptive (Yuan, Ming) [star]"—this star crosses a page (0721 pointing back to 0720) but does not cross a chapter.
The note texts of the stars' targets carry in the base text the mark 「＊」 tr. "star", and this section keeps them as the base text has them (entries eight, nine, sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one, twenty-four, forty-two, forty-three, forty-five, forty-six, sixty-six, and seventy-four of the ledger below).
Three interlinear notes within the collation notes · kept as they are (listed separately). This chapter's collation notes contain three interlinear notes of the base text, parenthetical sub-phrases of the base text, which this section keeps as they are without deleting them: first,〔T25 0718b11〕 「八十四【大】｜八十四（有本作差別品）【明】｜八十四品【宮】」 tr. "eighty-four (Taishō) | eighty-four (one edition has it as Difference) (Ming) | eighty-four, chapter (Palace)" (entry two of the ledger below)—the Ming edition's interlinear note is one end of the two parties to the chapter name; second,〔T25 0721b26〕 「脫【大】｜脫釋八十三品竟【石】」 tr. "deliverance (Taishō) | deliverance; the commentary on the eighty-third chapter ends (Ishiyama)" (entry eighty-four of the ledger below)—within the parentheses is the Ishiyama text's closing record at the end of the chapter, the second proof at the other end of the step of −1; third,〔T25 0721b27〕 「四【大】｜四（釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品）【宋】【元】｜四釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品【聖】」 tr. "four (Taishō) | four (explaining from the latter part of the eighty-third chapter to the end of the eighty-fourth chapter) (Song, Yuan) | four, explaining from the latter part of the eighty-second chapter to the end of the eighty-third chapter (Shōgozō)" (entry eighty-six of the ledger below)—the interlinear note of the Song and Yuan texts records the chapter boundaries explained in Fascicle Ninety-four (from the latter part of Chapter 83 to Chapter 84), while the interlinear note at the same position in the Shōgozō text reads 「第八十二品下訖第八十三品」 tr. "from the latter part of the eighty-second chapter to the end of the eighty-third chapter"; the Shōgozō text here too is a step of −1 (see Section IV).
The note on the head title of the next fascicle (not within the range of this chapter · listed separately to correct the attribution). The note on the head title of Fascicle Ninety-five〔T25 0721c02〕 (the base text's note number 0721016), the full text of the base text as it stands: 「（大智…五）十二字【大】，大智度經論釋第八十四品訖第八十五品【聖】，大智度經第八十四法性無作品【石】，釋乃至八十五八字三本俱在經前行」 tr. "(Mahā … five) twelve characters (Taishō), Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, explaining the eighty-fourth chapter to the end of the eighty-fifth chapter (Shōgozō), Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra, the eighty-fourth, the chapter The Nature of Dharmas Without Making (Ishiyama); the eight characters from ‘explaining’ to ‘eighty-fifth’ are in all three texts on the line before the sūtra"—this note is tied to the fascicle-head title of the next chapter, "The Seven Similes", Chapter 85; it is not within the range of this chapter and is not entered in this chapter's ledger; the 「法性無作品」 tr. "The Nature of Dharmas Without Making" that comes out of its Ishiyama reading is another name of the next chapter, not another name of this chapter (for the mutual proof from three sides see Section IV). This section lists it separately here, so as to avoid an error of attribution.
General collation ledger (a full reckoning of eighty-six entries · the base text as it stands). Below they are listed in full in the order of their appearance in the base text, including the nine star entries, each marked with the target of the note it corresponds to. The readings of the variant texts are preserved side by side, while the main text still follows the reading of the current base text:
Collation entries (eighty-six · in order of appearance in the base text · stars marked with each entry)
- 〔T25 0718b11〕四諦品【大】｜差別品【宮】 (one of the two parties to the chapter name · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0718b11〕八十四【大】｜八十四（有本作差別品）【明】｜八十四品【宮】 (the interlinear note within the collation note [side note] kept as it is · the Ming edition's interlinear note is one end of the two parties to the chapter name)
- 〔T25 0718b12〕【經】【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【聖】 (note on the presence or absence of the structural marker · the Song and Shōgozō texts lack this marker)
- 〔T25 0718b15〕種【大】｜種智【石】
- 〔T25 0718b19〕聖人【大】｜聖人而有得向之異【宋】【元】【明】【宮】｜聖人而有得向亦肴【聖】｜賢聖而有得向之異【石】 (the reading formed by the four texts is precisely the reading of the base text of the sūtra explained · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0718b24〕地人【大】｜人地【元】【明】【石】 (forms a mirror image with the collation note on the side of the sūtra explained · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0718b26〕佛陀【大】｜佛陀地【聖】
- 〔T25 0718c06〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star target entry · all seven stars of this chapter hang on it · see the separate listing above)
- 〔T25 0718c08〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕 · the base text of the sūtra explained reads 「六」 tr. "six" outright here, with no collation note · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0718c09〕若白【大】｜若白若黑白【聖】【石】 (the reading formed by the two texts Shōgozō and Ishiyama is precisely the reading of the base text of the sūtra explained)
- 〔T25 0718c10〕是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0718c14〕五道往來【大】｜往來六道【元】【明】【聖】【石】｜六道往來【宋】【宮】
- 〔T25 0718c16〕五【大】｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0718c17〕性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 (the four texts exactly agree with the base text of the sūtra explained)
- 〔T25 0718c18〕夫【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 (the four texts exactly agree with the base text of the sūtra explained)
- 〔T25 0718c20〕相【大】＊｜想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊ (star target entry · one more star on this line hangs on it)
- 〔T25 0718c20〕色【大】｜有色【元】【明】 (the reading formed by the Yuan and Ming is precisely the reading of the base text of the sūtra explained)
- 〔T25 0718c20〕相【大】＊｜想【元】【明】【聖】【石】＊ (star · shares the note on the same line at〔T25 0718c20〕)
- 〔T25 0718c20〕受【大】｜有受【元】【明】 (the reading formed by the Yuan and Ming is precisely the reading of the base text of the sūtra explained)
- 〔T25 0718c21〕相【大】｜想【元】【明】【石】
- 〔T25 0718c22〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕)
- 〔T25 0719a02〕苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】【石】 (forms a mirror image with the collation note on the side of the sūtra explained · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0719a04〕故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0719a05〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕)
- 〔T25 0719a10〕得度【大】｜〔－〕【宮】【聖】【石】 (forms a mirror image with the collation note on the side of the sūtra explained · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0719a10〕得度【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719a13〕滅【大】｜智滅【石】
- 〔T25 0719a13〕道【大】｜智道【石】
- 〔T25 0719a14〕須【大】｜相須【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】 (after 「平等」 tr. "equality" six texts add the character 「相」 tr. "mark" · the reading they form is precisely the reading of the base text of the sūtra explained · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0719a22〕故【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】
- 〔T25 0719b04〕佛【大】｜觀佛【石】
- 〔T25 0719b04〕性【大】｜相【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】 (all six texts agree with the base text of the sūtra explained · this treatise's base text is here a solitary reading · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0719b16〕是【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719b21〕能【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719b21〕門【大】｜智門【石】
- 〔T25 0719b22〕已【大】｜以【石】
- 〔T25 0719c02〕雖【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】｜報【石】
- 〔T25 0719c04〕斷【大】｜報斷【石】
- 〔T25 0719c14〕業【大】｜諸業【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0719c17〕生【大】｜少少生【石】
- 〔T25 0719c26〕是【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0719c26〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕)
- 〔T25 0719c27〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕)
- 〔T25 0719c28〕墮【大】｜隨【宋】【宮】
- 〔T25 0719c28〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕)
- 〔T25 0720a01〕五【大】＊｜六【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0718c06〕 · the last of this chapter's seven stars on the character 「五」 tr. "five")
- 〔T25 0720a02〕不【大】｜不得【明】
- 〔T25 0720a06〕處【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720a07〕為【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720a08〕能【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720a12〕是【大】｜黑是【聖】
- 〔T25 0720a13〕觀【大】｜觀觀【宋】【元】【明】【明】【聖】【石】 (the witness order of this reading kept as it is · the repetition of 【明】 is the original state of the base text)
- 〔T25 0720a14〕無【大】｜無黑【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0720a18〕修羅【大】｜羅漢【石】
- 〔T25 0720b05〕望【大】｜妄【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b07〕人【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b08〕中【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b08〕眾生法【大】｜眾生【元】【明】｜憶【石】
- 〔T25 0720b11〕得【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕苦【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕滅【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720b15〕道【大】｜滅道【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0720c05〕法【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c17〕不用【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720c18〕緣【大】｜因緣【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】
- 〔T25 0720c18〕妄【大】＊｜誑【元】【明】＊ (star target entry · the star at〔T25 0721a06〕 hangs on it · crosses a page, not a chapter)
- 〔T25 0720c19〕云【大】｜〔－〕【石】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕虛【大】｜〔－〕【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕又【大】｜人【聖】
- 〔T25 0720c22〕是【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0720c26〕定法【大】｜無為滅【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721a03〕住【大】｜位【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0721a06〕天【大】｜大【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】【石】
- 〔T25 0721a06〕妄【大】＊｜誑【元】【明】＊ (star · shares the note at〔T25 0720c18〕)
- 〔T25 0721a10〕地【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721a23〕地【大】｜定【明】
- 〔T25 0721a24〕苦【大】｜若【元】【明】
- 〔T25 0721b10〕一【大】｜一切【聖】
- 〔T25 0721b15〕波羅蜜【大】｜〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
- 〔T25 0721b16〕忍法【大】｜法忍【元】【明】【石】
- 〔T25 0721b17〕是【大】｜見【石】
- 〔T25 0721b22〕導【大】｜道【石】
- 〔T25 0721b23〕中主【大】｜生中【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【聖】
- 〔T25 0721b26〕脫【大】｜脫釋八十三品竟【石】 (the interlinear note within the collation note [side note] kept as it is · the Ishiyama text's closing record at the end of the chapter · the second proof at the other end of the step of −1 · see Section IV)
- 〔T25 0721b27〕論【大】｜經論【聖】 (in the fascicle-end title 「大智度論」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa", the character 「論」 tr. "treatise")
- 〔T25 0721b27〕四【大】｜四（釋第八十三品下訖第八十四品）【宋】【元】｜四釋第八十二品下訖第八十三品【聖】 (in the fascicle-end title 「卷第九十四」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety-four", the character 「四」 tr. "four" · the interlinear note within the collation note kept as it is · the Shōgozō text's interlinear note at the same position is also a step of −1 · see Section IV)
The eighty-six entries above agree mechanically with the number of anchored collation notes in the working base text (this section located one by one in the base text the start-and-end anchors within the range of this chapter, obtaining seventy-seven start-and-end pairs and nine stars, eighty-six in all, agreeing with the eighty-six entries of the list at the end of the working base text), and the targets of the stars are marked with each entry. The note on the chapter title, the nine stars, the three interlinear notes within the collation notes, and the note on the head title of the next fascicle have been listed separately above; the note on the chapter title and the note on the head title of the next fascicle are not entered in this ledger of eighty-six entries, as has been marked explicitly above.
Witness reading of the sūtra explained (twenty-eight places set out · the rest not set out · the gap recorded, awaiting supplement). Within the range of comparative reading of this chapter on the side of the sūtra explained, T223,〔T08 0411b15–0412b16〕, this section scanned entry by entry thirty-nine start-and-end anchors and five star anchors, forty-four anchors in all (thirty-nine collation entries); the twenty-eight variants that bear on this treatise, together with the mirror-image two readings of the chapter title, have been recorded entry by entry in Section IV. The order of witness codes on the T223 side differs from this treatise's side (its witness number one is the Shōgozō text, while on this treatise's side witness number one is the Song text); the T223 collation notes cited by this section are all transcribed as they stand from the ready readings of its collation notes, not read by inference from the code order of this treatise's side. The remaining entries have not been set out side by side one by one; it is recorded truthfully that they have not been set out, awaiting later supplementary checking, and the count is not made up with an estimate.