勝鬘寶窟 3.34

3.34

就文為二：一雙標二門、二雙釋二門。初中有二：一標凡夫過失章門；「一切羅漢」下，標二乘章門。凡夫章門有二：初二見章門、次顛倒章門。「二乘智是清淨」者，對凡夫二見顛倒，故目二乘為清淨。「邊見者」，此下廣釋。章二門即二：初釋凡夫過失章門、次釋二乘章門。初門中，前釋二見、後釋顛倒。前中初言「邊見者」，有三，謂標、釋、結。斷常二見乖於中道，故目為邊。若以無見為斷見、有見為常見，此則通於五見。今唯邊見，為斷常正是五見中之一也。釋有二：一依我起邊；二「見諸行」下，依法起邊。依我起中，「凡夫」者，出起見人也。「於五受陰起見境界，我見妄想計著生見」者，正明起見。明起見中有二：一起我見、二起斷常。於五受陰前起我身中有我，則是身見。故經言「六十二見，以身見為本。」身見為本，身見即是斷常之因，是故前明起我見。「妄想」者，起我見所由，無我計我。所云妄想，執實有我，起決定心，名為計著。「生二見」者，此明從我見生邊見，計即陰我，陰滅我滅，而生斷見；離陰計我，陰滅我存，而生常見。「是名」下，第三結也。若望正道，凡夫有三重顛倒，本來無陰而計有陰，一顛倒也；二於陰上復計為我，二重倒也；三而於我上復起斷常，謂三重倒也。故《法華論》解種種驚怖云無人法，謂人法即是顛倒驚怖也。「見諸行無常」，第二計行斷，就法明斷常。昔羅什法師云：「斷常有二：一執人斷常、二計行斷常。」當羅什在世，未有此經，而解與經合。就依法中，初依生死涅槃二法以起邊見、二依色心而起邊見。就初生死涅槃法中有二：初別明於生死涅槃起斷常見、次總明起見過失。「見諸行無常是斷見」者，依生死法起斷見也。五陰集起，名為諸行。又《中論．行品》云「五陰從行生」，故名行見。此諸行無常滅壞，故斷見。「是斷見非正見」者，結以顯非也。「見涅槃常是常見」者，依涅槃法起常見也。別論正是大涅槃，通則三乘所得皆是涅槃。問：涅槃實常，還見為常，應是正見。何故言是邊見？答：涅槃雖復是常，是因緣常，非定性常。取為性常，故是邊見。「是常見非正見」者，結以顯非。理實生死涅槃中皆起斷常，但眾生現見生死無常滅壞，多起斷見。見涅槃法無為永安，多起常見，故偏說之。「妄想見故」者，總明斷常起之所由。妄想見故，起於斷常。言妄想者，實非是常，橫謂言常，故云妄想。《寶性論》云「不滅有為行，以離斷見邊。不取無為涅槃，以離常見邊。」所以爾者，以生死即涅槃，故無可滅；涅槃即生死，故無別常。故論云「第一義諦，說生死法名為涅槃，此二法不分別故。」彼論云「無分別之人，不分別世間、不分別涅槃。」有人言：明此計非是念念生滅無常，乃言一切萬法死後生見，淨佛國土見亦不應除也。「於身諸根」者，此就色心起邊見亦二：初明邊見、次明過失。然於色心得具起斷常。於色法起常見者，如謂五大是常，及微塵之常。心法亦起斷見，如受滅我滅。今此中就色明斷、就心辨常者，並據顯現為言耳。「於身諸根，分別見壞、於續不見，起斷見」者，依壞色起斷見也。眼耳鼻等，是身諸根，現見盡滅，名見法壞也。於未來世，更有報起，名有相續。愚暗不見，謂之斷。此是見壞而不見續，故是斷見。「妄想見故」者，明起見所由也。「於心相續」下，明依心計常。心法續起，明心相續。凡夫不知，謂是常然。愚暗不解，不知剎那間意識境界，顯不解相。剎那是念，念念之中，前為意根、後為意識，意根意識分齊各異，名剎那間意識境界。凡夫不解，故便起常見。猶如小兒見旋火輪，謂不斷絕也。問：何故云意識境界起常見，不云五識起？答：意識多緣無量境界，故多計意識為常。五識各主一塵，代謝易知，故偏言意識。又五識託現五塵，不得循環長久在緣；意識通緣去來，或憶本事，故於意識通緣多生常見。又釋：前已云心相續。此言意與識，於中不知隨境生滅，故生常見，則六識通在其內。上來第一明起邊見，下對顯起見過失。「此妄想見」，牒上所辨斷常二見。「於彼義若過若不及」者，正明過失。有人言：謂於前一苦滅義，斷者太過、常者不及。問：前計我人等以為斷常，何關滅事，而於滅事明過與不及？答：理不離事故爾。故起斷見，謗無世事。以無事故，不得就之推求取實，名為太過；彼常見者，執取事相，不得捨事以取實義，說為不及。其猶世人，見繩為蛇，棄求繩，此是太過；留蛇取繩，便為不及。此亦如是。有人言：此斷常妄見，於彼理滅定義，若過不及也。以斷見謂諸法一向滅，不知理滅是有，故名太過；以常見謂諸法相續常，不知理滅離相寂滅靜，不可說常，故名不及也。有人言：色心皆有過與不及。於色法過者，現陰壞，謂是斷，是為若過；不見後續，名為不及。見心相續，謂是常，名為若過；不知剎那相間，名為不及。有人言：有為諸法無常，計佛亦無常，故言若過。若不及者，涅槃是真常，乃居金剛心外，向計現五陰無常身即是涅槃，此去涅槃太遠，故言不及。今依文釋。斷為太過者，見諸根滅壞，即謂未來無復續起，故為太過。見心生滅相續，即謂凝然常，不知生滅，名為不及。無常謂常、無斷謂斷，名為異想分別。

Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, a paired presentation of the two headings; second, a paired explanation of the two headings. Within the first, there are two: first, the heading on the errors of ordinary beings; second, from "all arhats" downward, the heading on the two vehicles. The heading on ordinary beings has two parts: first, the heading on the two views; next, the heading on inversions. "The wisdom of the two vehicles is pure" means: in contrast to ordinary beings' two views and inversions, the two vehicles are therefore designated as pure. "Extreme views" begins the detailed explanation below. The two chapter headings are twofold: first, explaining the heading on the errors of ordinary beings; next, explaining the heading on the two vehicles. In the first heading, it first explains the two views and then explains the inversions. In the former, the opening words "extreme views" have three [aspects]: designation, explanation, and conclusion. Because the two views of annihilationism and eternalism run counter to the Middle Way, they are designated as "extremes." If taking the view of nonexistence as annihilationism and the view of existence as eternalism, this would apply generally to all five views. Here it is only "extreme views," since annihilationism and eternalism are specifically one of the five views. The explanation has two parts: first, relying on a self to produce extremes; second, from "seeing conditioned phenomena" downward, relying on dharmas to produce extremes. In relying on a self: "Ordinary beings" indicates the persons who produce the views. "Forming a cognitive realm of views based on the five grasping aggregates, from the deluded conception and clingings of the view of a self, they give rise to views" directly clarifies the arising of the views. In clarifying the arising of the views, there are two points: first, giving rise to the view of a self; second, giving rise to annihilationism and eternalism. Given the five grasping aggregates, when one first gives rise to [the idea that] within the bodily self there is a self, this is the view of individuality (satkāyadṛṣṭi). Thus the sūtra states: "The sixty-two views have the view of individuality as their root." Because the view of individuality is the root, and the view of individuality is the cause of annihilationism and eternalism, the arising of the view of a self is explained first. "Deluded conception" refers to that from which the view of a self arises: positing a self where there is no self. What is termed "deluded conception" is grasping a self as truly existent and generating a fixed conviction; this is called "clingings." "They give rise to the two views" clarifies that from the view of a self one generates extreme views: grasping the self as identical to the aggregates, so that when the aggregates perish the self perishes, gives rise to annihilationism; grasping the self as distinct from the aggregates, so that when the aggregates perish the self persists, gives rise to eternalism. From "this is called" downward is the third part, the conclusion. In relation to the correct path, ordinary beings have a three-tier inversion: originally having no aggregates yet positing that there are aggregates is the first inversion; on the aggregates further positing a self is the second-tier inversion; and upon the self further giving rise to annihilationism and eternalism is the third-tier inversion. Therefore, the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa*, in explaining the diverse terrors, says that there are no persons or dharmas, meaning that [the conception of] persons and dharmas is itself the inversion and terror. "Seeing conditioned phenomena as impermanent" is the second part, grasping the annihilation of conditioned phenomena, which clarifies annihilationism and eternalism with respect to dharmas. In the past, Master Kumārajīva said: "Annihilationism and eternalism are twofold: first, grasping the annihilationism or eternalism of a person; second, calculating the annihilationism or eternalism of conditioned phenomena." While Kumārajīva was alive, this sūtra was not yet present, yet his explanation harmonizes with this sūtra. Regarding relying on dharmas, first, one relies on the two dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa to give rise to extreme views; second, one relies on form and mind to give rise to extreme views. Regarding the first, the dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, there are two parts: first, specifically clarifying the arising of the views of annihilationism and eternalism regarding saṃsāra and nirvāṇa; next, broadly clarifying the fault of giving rise to views. "Seeing conditioned phenomena as impermanent is annihilationism" means giving rise to annihilationism by relying on the dharma of saṃsāra. The assembly and arising of the five aggregates is called "conditioned phenomena." Furthermore, the "Chapter on Conditioned Phenomena" in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says, "The five aggregates arise from conditioned action," hence they are called "views on conditioned phenomena." Because these conditioned phenomena are impermanent, perishing and disintegrating, it is annihilationism. "This is annihilationism, not right view" concludes so as to reveal its error. "Seeing nirvāṇa as permanent is eternalism" means giving rise to eternalism by relying on the dharma of nirvāṇa. Specifically speaking, this is the Great Nirvāṇa; generally speaking, what is attained by the three vehicles is all nirvāṇa. Question: Nirvāṇa is truly permanent; seeing it as permanent should be right view. Why is it said to be an extreme view? Answer: Although nirvāṇa is permanent, it is a permanence of dependent origination, not a fixed, intrinsic permanence. Clinging to it as an intrinsic permanence makes it an extreme view. "This is eternalism, not right view" concludes so as to reveal its error. In truth, annihilationism and eternalism both arise with respect to both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa; however, because sentient beings visibly observe saṃsāra as impermanent, perishing and disintegrating, they mostly give rise to annihilationism. Seeing the dharma of nirvāṇa as unconditioned and eternally secure, they mostly give rise to eternalism; thus the text speaks biasedly of them. "Because of the view of deluded conception" broadly clarifies that from which annihilationism and eternalism arise. Because of the view of deluded conception, one gives rise to annihilationism and eternalism. The words "deluded conception" mean that it is not truly permanent, yet one arbitrarily proclaims it to be permanent; thus it is called deluded conception. The *Ratnagotravibhāga* states: "Not destroying conditioned actions avoids the extreme of annihilationism. Not grasping unconditioned nirvāṇa avoids the extreme of eternalism." The reason for this is that saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa, so there is nothing to destroy; nirvāṇa is itself saṃsāra, so there is no separate permanence. Therefore that treatise states: "The ultimate truth explains the dharmas of saṃsāra as being called nirvāṇa, because these two dharmas are not differentiated." That treatise says: "A person of non-conceptualization does not differentiate the world, nor do they differentiate nirvāṇa." Someone says: this calculation is explained not as the moment-to-moment impermanence of arising and perishing, but rather that one produces views after the death of all myriad dharmas; views of the purification of buddha lands should likewise not be eliminated. "In the bodily sense faculties" refers to giving rise to extreme views regarding form and mind, which also has two parts: first, clarifying the extreme views; next, clarifying the errors. However, one can fully give rise to both annihilationism and eternalism with respect to form and mind. Giving rise to eternalism with respect to form dharmas is, for example, saying that the five great elements are permanent, or the permanence of minute particles. With respect to mental dharmas, one also gives rise to annihilationism, as when sensation perishes, the self perishes. Here, explaining annihilation with respect to form and distinguishing permanence with respect to mind is simply spoken in terms of what is manifested. "Discerning and seeing destruction in the bodily sense faculties and not seeing continuation, they give rise to annihilationism" means giving rise to annihilationism based on the destruction of form. Eyes, ears, nose, and so forth are the bodily sense faculties; visibly seeing them exhaust and perish is called seeing the destruction of dharmas. In a future lifetime, there will be further retribution arising, which is called having continuation. In their ignorance and darkness, not seeing this, they call it annihilation. This is seeing destruction and not seeing continuation; therefore it is annihilationism. "Because of the view of deluded conception" clarifies the reason for the arising of views. From "Regarding the mental continuity" downward clarifies positing permanence based on the mind. Mental dharmas arise continuously, which explains the mental continuity. Ordinary beings do not understand and deem it to be permanently so. In their ignorance and darkness, they do not comprehend, not knowing the cognitive realm of the mental consciousness between moments—this reveals the mark of their incomprehension. A kṣaṇa is a single thought-moment; within moment after moment, the preceding is the mental faculty (manas) and the succeeding is the mental consciousness (manovijñāna). The boundaries of the mental faculty and the mental consciousness are distinct; this is called the cognitive realm of the mental consciousness between moments. Ordinary beings do not comprehend, and thus give rise to eternalism, just as a small child seeing a whirled firebrand wheel considers it unbroken and unceasing. Question: Why does it speak of giving rise to eternalism regarding the cognitive realm of the mental consciousness, and not speak of the five consciousnesses giving rise to it? Answer: The mental consciousness mostly takes immeasurable cognitive realms as its object, so one mostly reckons the mental consciousness as permanent. The five consciousnesses each govern a single sense object; their alternation is easy to recognize, so the text speaks exclusively of the mental consciousness. Furthermore, the five consciousnesses rely on the five present sense objects and cannot circulate and abide in the object for a long time; the mental consciousness universally takes the past and future as objects, or recollects past matters, so with respect to the mental consciousness's universal objective range, one mostly generates eternalism. Another explanation: The preceding already spoke of the mental continuity. Here it says "mind and consciousness," within which, not knowing they arise and perish according to the object, one generates eternalism; thus the six consciousnesses are all included therein. The above is the first part, clarifying the arising of extreme views. Below, the error of giving rise to views is revealed in comparison. "These views of deluded conception" recaps the two views of annihilationism and eternalism distinguished above. "Either exceeding or falling short with respect to that meaning" directly clarifies the errors. Someone says: it means that with respect to the preceding single meaning of the cessation of suffering, annihilationism exceeds and eternalism falls short. Question: The preceding grasped the self, person, etc., as annihilationism and eternalism; what does this have to do with the fact of cessation, that one clarifies exceeding and falling short regarding the fact of cessation? Answer: Because principle is not separate from facts, it is so. Thus giving rise to annihilationism slanders [reality] as having no worldly facts. Because of having no facts, one cannot pursue and grasp reality through them; this is called exceeding. That eternalist grasps factual marks and cannot relinquish facts to grasp the real meaning; this is said to be falling short. It is just like worldly people: seeing a rope as a snake, they abandon seeking the rope—this is exceeding; retaining the snake to take the rope is falling short. This is also like that. Someone says: these deluded views of annihilationism and eternalism either exceed or fall short regarding that definitive meaning of the cessation of principle. Because annihilationism considers all dharmas to be solely annihilated, not knowing that the cessation of principle is existent, it is called exceeding; because eternalism considers all dharmas to be continuously permanent, not knowing that the cessation of principle is markless, quiescent, and tranquil, and cannot be spoken of as permanent, it is called falling short. Someone says: both form and mind have exceeding and falling short. Regarding exceeding in form dharmas: when the present aggregates disintegrate, deeming it to be annihilation is exceeding; not seeing subsequent continuation is falling short. Seeing the mental continuity and deeming it to be permanent is exceeding; not knowing the alternation between moments is falling short. Someone says: conditioned dharmas are impermanent, and reckoning the Buddha to also be impermanent is called exceeding. Falling short means: nirvāṇa is true permanence and resides beyond the adamantine mind (vajrasamādhi), yet earlier one reckoned the present impermanent body of five aggregates to be itself nirvāṇa; this is too far removed from nirvāṇa, so it is said to fall short. Now, explaining according to the text: annihilation being exceeding means that seeing the sense faculties perish and disintegrate, one immediately considers that there will be no further continuation arising in the future, which is therefore exceeding. Seeing the arising and perishing of the mind in continuity, one immediately considers it to be rigidly permanent, not knowing its arising and perishing; this is falling short. Deeming the impermanent to be permanent and the non-annihilated to be annihilated is called differentiated discrimination.