大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 30.8

30.8

第四節。疏「今觀於身若我即陰」等者，即《中論．法品》中意。論云「若我即五陰，我即為生滅。若我異五陰，即非五陰相。若無有我者，何得有我所？內外我我所，盡滅無有故，諸受即為滅，受滅即身滅。業煩惱滅故，名之為解脫。業煩惱非實，入空戲論滅。」釋曰：上《中論》意，正觀於身五陰之法。而〈如來品〉五蘊上求如來，亦能就於我及我所說，即如自觀身實相，觀佛亦然。若了二我本自空寂，則見法身湛然常住。疏中初二句即論初兩句，明即陰無我。陰是有為生滅之法，我即是陰，故同生滅。次兩句是論第二兩句，異陰無我。而論主但云「則非五陰相」，今云「以何相知」者，是長行釋語。謂凡一切法，皆以相知有；離陰有我，即不以五陰為相為用，何相知有我耶？故但妄情，結成論意。妄情計有，我性實無，故云「我性未曾有」。

Section four. Regarding the commentary's phrase, 'Now contemplating the body: if the self were identical with the skandhas', and so forth: this is the meaning found in the 'Chapter on Dharmas' in the *Madhyamakaśāstra*. The treatise states: 'If the self were identical with the five skandhas, the self would be subject to arising and ceasing. If the self were different from the five skandhas, it would lack the characteristics of the five skandhas. If there is no self, how could there be what belongs to a self? Because internal and external self and what belongs to a self are completely eradicated and nonexistent, all appropriations are thereby eradicated; with appropriations eradicated, the body is eradicated. Because karma and afflictions are eradicated, it is named liberation. Karma and afflictions are not real; entering emptiness, conceptual proliferations are eradicated.' Explanation: The above meaning from the *Madhyamakaśāstra* properly contemplates the dharmas of the five skandhas of the body. Furthermore, the 'Tathāgata Chapter' seeks the Tathāgata with respect to the five skandhas, and can also speak with respect to the self and what belongs to a self; this is just as one contemplates the real mark of one's own body, and contemplates the Buddha likewise. If one understands that the two selves are originally empty and quiescent, one will see the dharmakāya clear, serene, and ever-abiding. The first two lines in the commentary are precisely the first two lines of the treatise, clarifying that identity with the skandhas entails no self: the skandhas are conditioned dharmas of arising and ceasing; if the self were identical with the skandhas, it would likewise arise and cease. The next two lines are the second two lines of the treatise, regarding difference from the skandhas entailing no self. While the treatise master merely says, 'it would not have the characteristics of the five skandhas', the commentary now says, 'by what characteristic could it be known?'; this is an explanation in prose. That is to say, all dharmas are known to exist by their characteristics; if there were a self apart from the skandhas, it would not take the five skandhas as its characteristics or functions—by what characteristic could the self be known to exist? Thus it is merely a delusional sentiment; this concludes the meaning of the treatise. Delusional sentiments impute existence, but the nature of a self is truly nonexistent; hence it says, 'the nature of a self has never existed'.