大般涅槃經義記 10.150

10.150

次觀無我。於中，初以無常及苦顯法無我，「智復觀苦即無常」下破情顯理。於中有五：一以苦無常破定有我。「苦即無常、無常即苦」觀法非我。「若苦無常云何說」下，徵破情執。「苦非我」下，重顯非我。「眾生云何說言有我」，重破情執。二以和合無性破我。「觀一切法有異和合」總明法和。「不從一和生一切法，亦非一法是一切果」別顯法和。「一切和合皆無自性」，總明無性。「亦無一性亦無異」下，別顯無性。「諸法若有如是相」下，結破說我。三觀諸法無獨能作破定有我。「一切法中無一能作」，別推無作。「若一不」下，以一類餘，明皆無作。四觀諸法無獨生滅破定有我。於中初明不獨生滅，次明諸法和合生滅。「是法生已眾生倒想，言是和合，從和合生」明凡倒惑。眾生宣說生滅和合，從於神我和合而生。「眾生倒想無有真」下，破情顯無。五就一異破定有我。於中，先推何因緣故眾生說我，下正破之。於中先就一異以定，次就破之，先就一破、後就多破，「一多俱無」總以結破。

Next is the contemplation of non-self. Therein, first he reveals the non-self of phenomena through impermanence and suffering; from "The wise person again contemplates that suffering is impermanence" downward, he refutes emotional attachment and reveals the principle. Therein are five points: First, he refutes the definite existence of a self through suffering and impermanence. "Suffering is impermanence, impermanence is suffering" contemplates that phenomena are not the self. From "If it is suffering and impermanence, how can one speak of..." downward questions and refutes emotional clinging. From "Suffering is not the self" downward reiterates that there is no self. "How can sentient beings say that there is a self?" reiterates the refutation of emotional clinging. Second, he refutes the self through combination being without intrinsic nature. "Contemplating that all phenomena have diverse combinations" generally clarifies the combination of phenomena. "From a single combination all phenomena are not produced, nor is a single phenomenon the effect of all" specifically reveals the combination of phenomena. "All combinations are devoid of intrinsic nature" generally clarifies the absence of intrinsic nature. From "There is neither a single nature nor a distinct..." downward specifically reveals the absence of intrinsic nature. From "If all phenomena have such characteristics..." downward concludes the refutation of speaking of a self. Third, contemplating that among all phenomena none can act alone refutes the definite existence of a self. "Among all phenomena, not one can act alone" specifically infers non-action. From "If one cannot..." downward uses one to analogize the rest, clarifying that all are without action. Fourth, contemplating that among all phenomena none arises or ceases alone refutes the definite existence of a self. Therein, first he clarifies that they do not arise or cease alone; next, he clarifies the arising and cessation of phenomena in combination. "After these phenomena arise, sentient beings have inverted notions, saying that this is combination, produced from combination" clarifies the inverted delusion of ordinary beings: sentient beings proclaim that arising and cessation are a combination, produced from the combination of an ātman. From "Sentient beings' inverted notions are without reality..." downward refutes emotional attachment and reveals nonexistence. Fifth, he refutes the definite existence of a self in terms of oneness and difference. Therein, first he investigates by what cause and condition sentient beings speak of a self, and below directly refutes it. Therein, he first determines it in terms of oneness and difference, and next refutes it; first refuting it in terms of oneness, and afterwards refuting it in terms of multiplicity; "both oneness and multiplicity are nonexistent" concludes the refutation in general.