大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 40.3.4

40.3.4

Second, grasping that the self is boundless and possesses perception after death, one grasps that which is non-form as the self because it pervades all places. Third, grasping that the self is both bounded and boundless and possesses perception after death, one grasps that the self contracts and expands following the body, and so on. Fourth, grasping that the self is neither bounded nor boundless and possesses perception after death, negates the third [alternative]; or these [views] arise based on both discursive thought and meditative attainment. As for the third set of four positions: 1. The self has a single perception; 2. The self has manifold perceptions; 3. The self has small perception; 4. The self has immeasurable perception. 'A single perception' pertains to the first three formless [realms]. 'Manifold perceptions' pertains to the desire realm and the form realm, excluding the Heaven of Non-Perception. Third, grasping limited form or grasping limited non-form as the perception of the self, or as that which belongs to the self, where the self is united with it—this is termed 'small perception'. This is in the desire and form realms, excluding the Heaven of Non-Perception. Fourth, 'immeasurable perception' means grasping immeasurable form as the perception of the self, or as that which belongs to the self, where the self is united with it; this is termed 'immeasurable perception'. As for the fourth set of four positions: 1. The self experiences pure pleasure and possesses perception after death, which pertains to the first three dhyānas. 2. The self experiences pure pain and possesses perception after death, which pertains to hell. 3. The self experiences both pain and pleasure and possesses perception after death, which pertains to the realms of humans, desire-realm devas, hungry ghosts, and animals. 4. The self experiences neither pain nor pleasure and possesses perception after death, which pertains to the fourth dhyāna. All of the above can arise through either discursive thought or meditative attainment. Regarding the eight doctrines of non-perception and the eight doctrines of neither [perception nor non-perception]: the eight doctrines of non-perception have two sets of four positions. As for the first set of four positions: 1. The self has form and lacks perception after death; grasping form as the self, one attains the concentration of non-perception, or seeing others attain this concentration and be born there, one forms this calculation. 2. The self is formless and lacks perception after death; grasping the life-faculty as the self, one attains the concentration of non-perception. 3. Grasping that the self is both with form and formless and lacks perception after death; one doubly grasps both form and the life-faculty as the self, giving rise to a single notion of self in both. 4. Grasping that the self is neither with form nor formless and lacks perception after death; this negates the third position, for both meditative attainment and discursive thought can give rise to it. As for the second set of four positions: 1. Grasping that the self is bounded and lacks perception after death; grasping form as the self, its measure being narrow and small, and so on, one attains the concentration of non-perception. 2. Grasping that the self is boundless and lacks perception after death; grasping form as the self, pervading all places, and so on. 3. Grasping that the self is both bounded and boundless and lacks perception after death; grasping form as the self because it expands and contracts following the body. The fourth position negates the third position and has no separate meaning; both meditative attainment and discursive thought can give rise to it. Next, the eight doctrines of neither [perception nor non-perception] have two sets of four positions. The first [set] states: 1. Grasping that the self has form and is neither percipient nor non-percipient after death; grasping form as the self, seeing sentient beings enter the concentration of neither-perception-nor-non-perception where perception is not clear and sharp, one forms this grasp; it is grasped solely through discursive thought, not through attaining the concentration. 2. Grasping that the self is formless and after death is as before; grasping the formless aggregates as the self, etc., because upon entering the concentration of neither-perception-nor-non-perception the perception is not distinct, one forms this grasp. 3. Grasping that the self is both with form and formless and after death is as before; grasping both form and the formless as the self, seeing sentient beings, etc., as before. The above all arise based on discursive thought, not from meditative attainment. The fourth position negates the third position, with no separate meaning. The second set of four positions states: 1. Grasping that the self is bounded and is neither percipient nor non-percipient after death, up through the fourth position; the text is easy to understand. All of these grasp the four formless [aggregates] as the self; because of attaining the concentration of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, this grasp can occur. 1. Because the duration of that concentration is brief, one takes each aggregate separately as an object of cognition and grasps that the self is bounded. 2. Because the duration of that concentration is long, one takes all four aggregates collectively as an object of cognition, and grasps that the self is boundless. 3. Because through that concentration, one takes either each separate aggregate or all collectively as an object of cognition, this forms the third position. The fourth position negates the third, with no separate meaning. As for the seven doctrines of annihilationism: 1. Grasping that the self has coarse form, having the nature of being composed of the four great elements, and after death is annihilated and ultimately non-existent; because one sees that the body exists and then ceases to exist after death. 2. The self is a desire-realm deva and after death is annihilated. 3. The self is a form-realm deva and after death is annihilated. 4. The self is in the stage of infinite space, up to neither-perception-[nor-non-perception], and in all cases one says that after death it is annihilated. The latter four grasps consider their respective planes to be the summit of cyclic existence. The preceding forty views are eternalism; the latter seven views are annihilationism. These are all abandoned by seeing and are termed 'conceptually generated'. Regarding the statement that there are the two doctrines of non-causality calculating the prior edge, and so on: these all arise due to wrong views; because the view is improper, it is called 'wrong'. As for the two [doctrines of] non-causality: 1. Dying from the Heaven of Non-Perception and coming to be born here, lacking the supernormal knowledge of past lives, one cannot recollect all the states prior to the emergence of mind, and thus grasps that all dharmas arise from having previously been non-existent, just as my self must also have arisen from having previously been non-existent; one then gives rise to the grasp, saying: 'I and the world have arisen without a cause.' 2. Due to discursive thought failing to recollect previous lives, one forms this grasp that they arise without a cause. These two views arise due to the two factors of the Heaven of Non-Perception and false discursive thought. As for the four [doctrines of] having an end: 1. Because one can solely recollect the upper and lower [realms]—down to the Avīci Hell and up to the fourth dhyāna—one grasps that the self fully pervades therein, and then forms this thought: 'Beyond this, if there were a self, I should be able to see it; therefore I know it has an end.' 2. Because one can solely recollect that the horizontal directions have no end, one grasps that the self pervades them, and therefore grasps that it is endless. 3. Because one can recollect both upper and lower as well as the horizontal, one doubly grasps both having an end and endless. 4. Because one can recollect the phases of the kalpa of destruction, one gives rise to the thought that it neither has an end nor is endless, because no container world can be found. As for the four kinds of immortality-evasive equivocation, first is an overall explanation of the name. Following the intent of the Vibhāṣā, non-Buddhists calculate devas as permanent, calling them 'immortals', and calculate that answering without disorder allows one to be born in those heavens. Now the Buddhadharma rebukes them, saying: 'Your statements of secret [meanings] and so forth are simply evasive equivocations.' As for the four kinds: 1. Fearing their own ignorance, thinking: 'I do not know what is wholesome and unwholesome, etc.; if others ask me, I must not answer definitely. If I answer definitely, I fear others will discern the cause of my ignorance and will laugh at and ridicule me. The secret meanings of those heavens ought not to be fully spoken, and so on.' 2. Those who practice flattery and deviousness contemplate: 'It is not the case that our pure heavens permit all concealed secrets to be predicted'—referring to one's own realizations and the path of purity. 3. Harbouring fear and making no prediction: fearing that their dullness and inferiority will become known to others, and that due to this cause and condition they will not attain liberation, they use this as a chamber in which to comfortably abide, because they harbour fear. 4. Those with foolish stupidity who single-mindedly cultivate quietude without knowing anything: 'If someone asks me, I will cross-examine them; whatever they say, I will confirm and agree with without diminution.'