大般涅槃經義記 1.185

1.185

明無我中，初之二偈正明無我，下有半偈約智顯過。前兩偈中，初一偈半就生死果以說無我，後之半偈就生死因以明無我。前偈半中，初偈正辨、後半結之。前正辨中，「可壞流動」約無常義以顯無我，「常有憂等」約其苦過以顯無我。憂患心苦，恐等身苦。就身苦中，「恐怖諸惡」是其外苦，「老、病、死等」是其內苦，亦可憂者是其心苦，患是身苦，此二並舉，是故名等。恐怖諸惡出其所憂，老、病、死等出其所患。上來正辨，下次結之。「是諸無邊」，是總結也。是前諸過細分廣多，故曰無邊。「易壞怨侵」，是別結也，易壞結前可壞流動，怨侵結前常有憂等。上來就果，下就因說。「煩惱所纏」，法說以論，「如蠶處繭」，類以顯之，唯是妄想煩惱所纏，故無我體。上來正辨。「何有智者而當樂此」，約智顯過。下明不淨。「此身苦集，一切不淨」，果體不淨。「扼縛癰瘡，根本無利」，種子不淨。扼者四扼，所謂欲、有、無明及見。欲界煩惱除無明見名為欲扼、色無色界一切煩惱除無明見名為有扼、三界無明名無明扼、三界諸見名為見扼。此等四種能令眾生為苦所扼，故名為扼。如《雜心》釋：縛謂四縛，名同四扼。癰瘡是漏，漏有三種：所謂欲、有及無明漏。廣如下釋。用此以為身之根本，故無義利。「上至天身皆亦如是」，明其分齊。下至地獄、上至天身，皆是苦集，根本無利，故是不淨。上來廣辨五非常過。「諸欲無常，故我不貪」，總結捨離。上有五過，以何義故偏言無常？無常在初，故偏說之。亦可諸義互以相顯，且言無常。

In explaining non-self, the first two verses directly elucidate non-self, while the following half-verse reveals the fault in reference to wisdom. In the first two verses, the first verse and a half speaks of non-self in terms of the fruit of birth-and-death, and the latter half-verse explains non-self in terms of the causes of birth-and-death. In the first verse and a half, the first verse directly discriminates [it], and the latter half concludes it. In the direct discrimination above, "perishable and fluctuating" reveals non-self in reference to the meaning of impermanence; "constantly having anxieties and the like" reveals non-self in reference to the fault of suffering. Grief and distress are suffering of mind, while fear and the like are suffering of body. Within suffering of body, "fears and all evils" are external sufferings, while "old age, sickness, death, and the like" are internal sufferings. Alternatively, grief is suffering of mind, and distress is suffering of body; these two are raised together, which is why it says "and the like." "Fears and all evils" brings forth that which is grieved; "old age, sickness, death, and the like" brings forth that which is suffered. The preceding was the direct discrimination; the following concludes it. "These are limitless" is a general conclusion. These preceding faults, when divided in detail, are vast and numerous; hence it says "limitless." "Easily destroyed and invaded by enemies" is a specific conclusion: "easily destroyed" concludes the preceding "perishable and fluctuating"; "invaded by enemies" concludes the preceding "constantly having anxieties and the like." The preceding was explained in terms of the fruit; the following is explained in terms of the causes. "Entangled by defilements" is stated by way of a doctrinal explanation; "like a silkworm in a cocoon" illustrates it by analogy. It is merely entangled by delusive conceptualization and defilements, and therefore has no self-entity. The preceding was the direct discrimination. "How could a wise person take pleasure in this?" reveals the fault in reference to wisdom. Below, it explains impurity. "This body is an accumulation of suffering, entirely impure" refers to impurity of the body as a fruit. "Yokes, bonds, boils, and sores—fundamentally devoid of benefit" refers to impurity of seeds. "Yokes" refers to the four yokes, namely desire, becoming, ignorance, and views. The defilements of the desire realm, excluding ignorance and views, are called the yoke of desire; all defilements of the form and formless realms, excluding ignorance and views, are called the yoke of becoming; the ignorance of the three realms is called the yoke of ignorance; and all views of the three realms are called the yoke of views. These four kinds can cause sentient beings to be yoked by suffering; hence they are called "yokes." As explained in the Za xin: "Bonds" refers to the four bonds, whose names are identical to the four yokes. "Boils and sores" are outflows (āsrava); there are three kinds of outflows: namely the outflows of desire, becoming, and ignorance. They are explained in detail below. Taking these as the root of the body, there is fundamentally no benefit. "Up to the bodies of devas, all are likewise" explains the range: from the hells below up to the bodies of devas above, all are accumulations of suffering and fundamentally devoid of benefit; therefore they are impure. The preceding broadly discriminated the faults of the five impermanences. "All desires are impermanent, therefore I am not greedy [for them]" is a general conclusion of renunciation. There are five faults above; for what reason does it speak exclusively of impermanence? Impermanence comes first, which is why it is specifically mentioned. Alternatively, the various meanings mutually illuminate one another, so impermanence is spoken of for the time being.