法華義疏 4.67

4.67

「入邪見稠林」下，第二、明起見。就文亦二：初、明見因；次、明見果。「入邪見稠林」者，此中有一見二見乃至六十二見。言一見者，總名外道諸見為一邪見，邪見眾多譬如密林，故云稠林也。「若有若無等」者，此明二見也。《智度論》云「愛多者著有故起有見，見多者著無故起無見」。又云「四見多者著有，邪見多者著無也」。「依止此諸見具足六十二」者，明六十二見。《大品》「譬如我見攝六十二見」，則我見為六十二見本。《大品》又云「一異為本」，此經以有無為本，此三不相違也。由計有我故生諸見，則我為其本，以有我故計我與陰一、我與陰異，故以一異為本。我與陰一則陰滅我滅，便起斷見。我與陰異則陰滅我存，故起於常見。斷常則是有無，故以有無為本。有無謂邊見，為六十二見本，我為邊見之本也。「六十二見」者，《大品．佛母品》開十四難為六十二。十四難者：神及世間常無常等四，神及世間邊無邊等四，死後如去不如去等四，合為十二，及身與神一、身與神異合為十四。常無常內約五陰作之，一陰具常無常四句，故成二十；邊無邊亦約五陰，故成二十；如去不如去亦成二十，合為六十，一異為本合為六十二。又釋，即色是我，離色有我，我住色中，色住我中，一陰有四，五陰二十，約三世為六十，斷常為本合六十二。十六為即陰，四十六為離陰。又釋，一陰上計有無二種，五陰便成十見，三世為三十，凡夫五陰有三十見，聖人五陰亦三十，合有六十，涅槃非三世攝，但計涅槃有無二，合成六十二見也。

From "Entering the dense forest of false views" downward is the second part, explaining the arising of views. In the text there are also two parts: first, explaining the causes of views; second, explaining the fruits of views. "Entering the dense forest of false views": herein are one view, two views, up to sixty-two views. As for "one view," it refers to all non-Buddhist views collectively as a single false view; false views are numerous, like a dense forest, hence called a "dense forest." "Whether of existence or non-existence, and so forth": this explains the two views. The Dazhidulun says, "Those with excessive craving cling to existence and so give rise to the view of existence; those with excessive views cling to non-existence and so give rise to the view of non-existence." It also says, "Those with excessive four views cling to existence; those with excessive false views cling to non-existence." "Relying upon these views, fully sixty-two": this explains the sixty-two views. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "Just as the view of a self encompasses the sixty-two views," thus the view of a self is the root of the sixty-two views. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra also says, "Identity and difference are the root." This sūtra takes existence and non-existence as the root; these three do not contradict one another. Because one posits a self, various views arise; thus the self is their root. Because there is a self, one posits that the self is identical with the aggregates or that the self is different from the aggregates; hence identity and difference are taken as the root. If the self is identical with the aggregates, then when the aggregates perish the self perishes, and the view of annihilationism arises. If the self is different from the aggregates, then when the aggregates perish the self survives, and the view of eternalism arises. Annihilation and permanence are existence and non-existence; hence existence and non-existence are taken as the root. Existence and non-existence refer to extreme views (antagrāhadṛṣṭi), which are the root of the sixty-two views, and the self is the root of extreme views. As for the "sixty-two views," the "Buddha Mother Chapter" of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra expands the fourteen unexplained points (avyākṛta) into sixty-two. The fourteen unexplained points are: the soul and the world are permanent, impermanent, both, or neither (four); the soul and the world are finite, infinite, both, or neither (four); after death [the Tathāgata] exists, does not exist, both, or neither (four) — totaling twelve; and the body and soul are identical, or the body and soul are different — totaling fourteen. Within permanence and impermanence, they are constructed in terms of the five aggregates: one aggregate possesses the four positions of permanence and impermanence, thus making twenty; finitude and infinitude are also in terms of the five aggregates, thus making twenty; existing or not existing after death also makes twenty, totaling sixty; with identity and difference as the root, they total sixty-two. Another explanation: form is the self; apart from form there is a self; the self is within form; form is within the self. One aggregate has four, so the five aggregates have twenty; in terms of the three periods of time, this makes sixty; with annihilation and permanence as the root, they total sixty-two. Sixteen are [views of] identity with the aggregates, and forty-six are [views of] difference from the aggregates. Yet another explanation: positing the two kinds of existence and non-existence upon one aggregate makes ten views for the five aggregates; for the three periods of time this makes thirty. The five aggregates of ordinary beings have thirty views, and the five aggregates of noble ones also have thirty, totaling sixty; nirvāṇa is not subsumed under the three periods of time, but positing the two of existence and non-existence regarding nirvāṇa makes sixty-two views in all.