大般涅槃經集解 64.48

64.48

Sengliang comments: Regarding the self, there is the true and the conventional: conventional, hence spoken of as existent; true, hence spoken of as non-existent. Speaking of the conventional counters annihilation; speaking of the true counters permanence. Yet confused people, hearing that the conventional exists, say the true also exists; hearing that the true does not exist, say the conventional also does not exist; thus disputatious arguments arise. Sengzong comments: The second disputatious argument. In order to eliminate the view of annihilation, the Tathāgata taught that there truly is an experiencer of the karma of good and evil. Since one passes through rebirths to receive the fruit, the intent lies in continuity. A single practitioner, a single conscious spirit, continuously expresses function and is nominally called a self. Failing to master this purport, they mistakenly reckon that there is a real, unperishing conscious self, receiving rebirth in various places. Baoliang comments: Refuting their view of annihilation, he spoke of continuity and a nominal self-function; yet those who mistakenly cling to it then say there is a spirit. If they hear the teaching that refutes and negates a spiritual self, they then think the eight masteries are also non-existent. Because their two attachments differ, dispute arose. If spoken from the Middle Path, King Sudarśana being precisely my body was spoken only for people holding the view of annihilation. The statement 'there is no self' was spoken on account of the reckoning of a spiritual self; it is not that the self of the eight masteries does not exist. Therefore one may say that it both exists and does not exist.