仁王經疏 1.27

1.27

問：豈不《中論》說實相門中，非我非無我。如何《智度論》中說為無我？答：不相違。世界悉檀即說為我，第一義中說為無我，各各為人。或我無我雙遣二執，亦得說言非我非無我。故《中論》云「諸佛或說我，或說於無我。諸法實相中，非我非無我。」若偏對我，即說無我以為實相。若雙遣執，非我非無我以為實相。各據一義，故不相違。依彌勒宗《瑜伽》第六「由四因故，依諸蘊中假說為我。一為世間言說易故、二欲隨順諸世間故、三為斷除決定無我諸怖畏故、四為宣說自他得失令其決定信解心故。」廣釋四因，如《雜集論》第十三說。

Question: Does not the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* state that within the approach of the true mark, it is neither self nor non-self? Why does the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* say it is non-self? Answer: They do not conflict. In the worldly siddhānta it is spoken of as self, while in the ultimate truth it is spoken of as non-self, each for individual persons. Alternatively, both attachments to self and non-self are dispelled, so one may also say neither self nor non-self. Hence the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* says: 'The buddhas have spoken of a self, / And have also spoken of non-self; / In the true mark of all phenomena, / There is neither self nor non-self.' If one specifically counters [the view of] self, then non-self is spoken of as the true mark. If one dispels both attachments, then neither self nor non-self is the true mark. Each is based on one aspect, so they do not conflict. According to Maitreya's school, in the sixth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi*: 'Due to four causes, a self is conventionally designated based on the aggregates: 1. for ease of worldly speech; 2. wishing to conform to worldly conventions; 3. to sever the fears of definitive non-self; 4. to proclaim the gains and losses of oneself and others so as to cause them to have a mind of definitive faith and understanding.' The four causes are extensively explained as stated in fascicle thirteen of the *Samuccaya* (*Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya*).