大般涅槃經義記 9.8

9.8

下次破其異陰計我。還初破邪，後顯正義。就破邪中文有四對：第一外道因前被破立異陰我，言「色至識悉非是我，我遍一切猶如虛空」。下佛對破，有三復次。一就見徵破，「若遍有者，則不應言我物不見」據本以徵。若我周遍，本來恒遍，一切處色常應具見，不應說言我初不見。若初不見後方見者，見則本無，便是無常，云何言遍？二就趣以徵，「若我遍者，五道之中應具有身」令徵令齊有。懼立齊有，下復徵破，「若具有者，五道之中應各受報，云何說言轉離三塗受人天身」。三就一異徵破。先為兩定，「一耶多耶」。「若一則無父子」等者，難破一遍。「我若多」下，難破多遍。若多而遍，此人之我遍彼身中，彼人之我遍此身中，一切眾生五根業慧悉應齊等，不應有別。懼彼立等，下復難破。若當齊等，「云何說言根具不具」難破根等，「善業惡業」難破業等，「愚智差別」難破慧等。

Next is the refutation of positing a self distinct from the aggregates. Again, it first refutes the heterodox and afterward displays the orthodox meaning. Within refuting the heterodox, the text has four pairs: First, because of being refuted previously, the non-Buddhists establish a self distinct from the aggregates, saying: "From form to consciousness, none is the self; the self pervades everything, just like empty space." Below, the Buddha confronts and refutes them with three iterations. First, he challenges and refutes them in reference to seeing: "If it exists pervasively, one should not say: 'I did not see the object,'" questioning them based on the fundamental nature [of pervasiveness]. If the self is all-pervading, it has fundamentally always been pervading, and should constantly and fully see forms in all places; one should not say, "I did not see it at first." If one does not see it at first and only sees it later, then the seeing was fundamentally non-existent and is impermanent; how could it be said to be all-pervading? Second, he challenges them in reference to the destinies: "If the self is all-pervading, it should completely have bodies within the five destinies," questioning them to force the consequence of simultaneous existence. Fearing they might establish simultaneous existence, he further challenges and refutes them below: "If it completely possessed them, it should individually receive retribution within the five destinies; how can you say that one transitions away from the three wretched realms and receives a human or heavenly body?" Third, he challenges and refutes them in reference to oneness and difference. He first posits a dilemma: "Is it one, or is it many?" "If it is one, there would be no father and son," etc., objects to and refutes a single all-pervading [self]. From "If the self is many" downward, he objects to and refutes many all-pervading [selves]. If they are many and all-pervading, then this person's self would pervade that person's body, and that person's self would pervade this person's body; the five faculties, karma, and wisdom of all sentient beings should all be identical and equal, and there should be no distinction. Fearing they might assert equality, he further objects and refutes below: If they were indeed identical and equal, "How could one speak of faculties being complete or incomplete?" objects to and refutes the equality of faculties; "wholesome karma and unwholesome karma" objects to and refutes the equality of karma; "the distinction between the foolish and the wise" objects to and refutes the equality of wisdom.