大般涅槃經義記 9.5

9.5

In the third section, it first clarifies the Tathāgata refuting the heterodox and revealing the orthodox. From "The various non-Buddhists said: 'If one says that the Tathāgata is permanent, joyful, and self'" downward, it clarifies the various non-Buddhists abandoning the heterodox and taking refuge in the orthodox. In the former part there are two: first, refuting the non-Buddhists' positing a self identical with dharmas; second, from "The six masters said: 'Form is not the self'" downward, refuting those non-Buddhists' positing a self distinct from dharmas. In the former, he first refutes the self in reference to the six sense faculties; "If the six masters say form is external to my self" refutes the self in reference to the five aggregates. Regarding refutation in reference to the faculties, he first refutes heterodox attachments; from "What the buddhas and bodhisattvas see as the true" downward, he displays the orthodox meaning. In the former part refuting the heterodox, the text specifically has two parts: first, the non-Buddhists establish a self, and the Tathāgata confronts and refutes them; second, the non-Buddhists question the Buddha, and the Tathāgata explains for them. In the former, first the non-Buddhists establish a self: "Gautama has a self, and I also have a self," speaking heterodoxy to disorder the orthodox. Below, he delineates the marks of the self, speaking provisionally of the eye among the six faculties. "The seer is named the self" is established in terms of the dharma, followed by a metaphor, and then the application. Below, the Buddha confronts and refutes it: "That the seer is named the self, this meaning is not so," citing it to negate it generally. From "Why?" downward, he explains with three iterations: First, faculties and functions are not simultaneous, refuting a definitely existing self. "When a person faces one direction, the six faculties all function simultaneously" delineates the details of the metaphor. From "If there definitely is" downward, he questions whether the dharma matches the metaphor. From "If within one faculty one cannot" downward, he examines the metaphor by means of the dharma, refuting a definitely existing self. Second, faculties and functions are not constant, refuting a definitely existing self. "Although the metaphor you cited spans a hundred years, seeing through it is not different" delineates the details of the metaphor. From "If the eye faculty" downward, he questions whether the dharma matches the metaphor, clearly showing there is no self. Third, the faculties and functions face only one direction, refuting a definitely existing self. "Because the person's orientation differs, he sees within and sees without" delineates the details of the metaphor. From "If the eye faculty" downward, he questions whether the dharma matches the metaphor. From "If it does not see" downward, he clarifies that the dharma contradicts the metaphor, refuting a definitely existing self.