大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 30.8

30.8

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'.