大般涅槃經義記 9.169

9.169

第二次辨有我無我。於中還初辨其諍相。有人聞說眾生無我，謂呼世俗假我亦無；有人聞說假名之我，便立性實，所以成諍。次辨道理。理則兼通，陰合成人名為有我，陰別無人名為無我。下釋其文。於中，初明如來說我凡聞起諍，有兩復次，文顯可知；後說無我凡聞起諍。聖說無中，初有比丘問佛我義，次佛對破，下明比丘聞而得果。問中，「世尊！云何名我」問其我因。「我緣我」者，問其我緣。就佛破中，「無我我所」總明無我，「眼者」已下略顯無義。「雖有業」下廣顯無義，於中有四：一略就因果以明無我。二「無捨陰」下略就五陰以明無我。三「如汝問」下廣就因果以明無我，於中初法、次喻、後合。法中，初言「云何我」者，牒其初問。「即是期」者，對問辨釋。指報為我，報由結業期會而生故名為期。誰及何緣，相顯可知。喻中，「二手」喻前業愛。「聲」喻期也。合中，初言「我亦如是」總合前喻。下別合之，「眾生」合聲。「業愛」合前二手相拍。此三和合名為我故，無別我人。四「一切生」下，廣就五陰以明無我。句別有三：一明陰無我。二「諸外道」下，破有歸無，明諸外道計陰作我，離陰更無。三「如幻」下，辨法顯無。五陰諸行皆如幻化無常樂等，故無有我。第三比丘得益，可知。第三次辨中陰有無。先辨諍相。毘曇法中說除四空，餘一切處定有中陰；成實法中說一切無，所以成諍。次辨道理。理則不偏，亦有亦無。極重惡業趣向阿鼻，前念人間、後念已在，中無經停則無中陰；趣向四空亦無中陰。餘皆具有，不得偏取。文中初明如來說有，凡聞起諍。有四復次：一說眾生三事受身父母中陰、第二宣說中般那含、三說中陰根具明了、四說中陰形色好惡，愚人聞此謂一切有。下明說無，凡聞起諍，有四復次：一說五逆趣向阿鼻無其中陰、二說曇摩趣向阿鼻無其中陰、三為犢子說無中陰、四說無色無其中陰。愚聞不解，謂一切無。

Second is to explain existence of self and absence of self. Herein, one also first clarifies the aspects of the controversy. Some hear it taught that sentient beings are devoid of self and presume that even the conventional, nominal self does not exist; some hear of the nominally designated self and immediately establish an intrinsic, real entity; hence a controversy arises. Next, one clarifies the principle. The principle encompasses both: when the aggregates combine to form a person, it is called having a self; when the aggregates are differentiated and there is no person, it is called having no self. Below, the text is explained. Herein, it first explains that the Tathāgata taught a self and ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy; there are two further instances, the text being clear and understandable. Afterwards, it explains that he taught no-self and ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy. In the noble teaching on absence, first a bhikṣu asks the Buddha about the meaning of self; next the Buddha refutes it in response; below, it explains that the bhikṣu heard it and attained the fruit [of the path]. In the question, 'World-Honoured One! What is called the self?' asks about the cause of the self. 'The self conditions the self' asks about the conditions for the self. Regarding the Buddha's refutation, 'Without self and what belongs to a self' comprehensively clarifies the absence of self. From 'the eye' onward, it briefly reveals the meaning of absence. From 'Although there is karma' onward, it elaborately reveals the meaning of absence, wherein there are four parts: First, it briefly clarifies no-self in terms of cause and effect. Second, from 'There is no abandoning the aggregates' onward, it briefly clarifies no-self in terms of the five aggregates. Third, from 'As you have asked' onward, it elaborately clarifies no-self in terms of cause and effect, wherein there are first the doctrine, next a simile, and then the application. Within the doctrine, first saying 'What is the self?' cites his initial question. 'It is indeed the rendezvous' explains in response to the question. Designating the retribution as the self, because the retribution is produced through the appointed rendezvous of bonds and karma, it is called a rendezvous. Who [it is] and what conditions [produce it] are clear and understandable in their aspects. In the simile, the 'two hands' illustrate the prior karma and craving. The 'sound' illustrates the rendezvous. In the application, first saying 'The self is also like this' comprehensively applies the previous simile. Below, it separately applies it: 'sentient beings' corresponds to the sound; 'karma and craving' corresponds to the earlier two hands clapping together. Because these three in harmonious combination are called a self, there is no separate self or person. Fourth, from 'All arising' onward, it elaborately clarifies no-self in terms of the five aggregates. The specific statements are three: First, it clarifies that the aggregates are devoid of self. Second, from 'The non-Buddhists' onward, it refutes existence and returns to non-existence, clarifying that non-Buddhists conceive the aggregates to be the self and that apart from the aggregates there is nothing else. Third, from 'Like an illusion' onward, it analyzes dharmas to reveal non-existence. The formations of the five aggregates are all like an illusion, devoid of permanence, bliss, and the like, and therefore there is no self. Third, the bhikṣu's attainment of benefit is understandable. Third is to explain the existence or non-existence of the intermediate existence (antarābhava). First, one clarifies the aspects of the controversy. In the Abhidharma system it is taught that apart from the four formless [realms], in all other realms there definitely is intermediate existence; in the Tattvasiddhi system it is taught that in all [realms] it does not exist; hence a controversy arises. Next, one clarifies the principle. The principle is not one-sided: it both exists and does not exist. With extremely heavy evil karma heading towards Avīci, the prior thought is in the human realm and the subsequent thought is already there; with no interval of staying in between, there is no intermediate existence. Heading towards the four formless [realms], there is also no intermediate existence. All others possess it; one must not hold to one side exclusively. In the text, it first clarifies that the Tathāgata taught existence and ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy. There are four further instances: first, teaching that sentient beings take rebirth through three things—father, mother, and intermediate existence; second, proclaiming the anāgāmin who attains nirvāṇa in the intermediate existence; third, teaching that the intermediate existence has faculties that are complete and clear; fourth, teaching that the physical appearance of intermediate existence may be good or bad. Foolish people hear this and claim that all possess it. Below, it clarifies the teaching of non-existence, where ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy; there are four further instances: first, teaching that those committing the five heinous crimes who head towards Avīci have no intermediate existence; second, teaching that Dharmas heading towards Avīci have no intermediate existence; third, teaching the non-existence of intermediate existence for the Vātsīputrīyas; fourth, teaching that the formless [realm] has no intermediate existence. The foolish hear this without understanding and claim that all are without it.