大般涅槃經疏 16.6

16.6

「善男子有為之法」下，第三正答所問，又為三：一雙辨色心兩章門、二偏明心無常、三偏明色無常。舊云：總有三聚，引〈梵行〉云「色法非色法、非色非非色法。」以非色非非色為無作聚。又引〈聖行〉云「白四羯磨然後得者，得於無作。」是義不然，非色非無色乃是中道雙忘兩捨，豈是無作；無作有為，此過非小。白四羯磨然後乃得，此受得戒，不足證於中道無作。何者？作與無作皆有漏善，闡提信作不信無作。若依小乘，無作有漏；若依今意，無作無漏，如向引戒聖行受戒無作為證，何等無作耶？彼救云：若不許有無作義者，下文那云言無作是爭論耶？答：數人云無作是色，論人云無作無色，各執不同致成爭論。我今設云有無作者，終不計於色與無色，況各計耶？又我設云有無作者，終不定執小有大無，則無爭論。又準文，只云「色之與心」，何以強說作與無作？若數人，心是心王，數隨王起。又識是心王，數是想等。色有十一，謂五根、五塵并無教色。論人明五根、五塵、四大為十四色。然此但明四大五色，下文明十一色。所以然者，互現一邊，不專一處。「善男子心名無常」下，第二偏明心是無常。又為四：一無常、二破常執、三重明無常、四重破常執。初明無常，為四復次：一攀緣異、二六識異、三六塵異、四相應異。「善男子心若常者」下，第二破執常四復次：一明識不應獨緣、第二六識不應異、第三所因不應異、第四謂名不應異。「復次善男子」下，第三重明無常五復次：一明三聖心異、二三凡夫心異、三三受心異、四三毒心異、五三外道心異。初如文。次三凡心中云在家遠離者，身在家而心離遠。「善男子心若常者」下，第四重破常，正是破於前八復次，文還有八，雖不相對，或破前，或生後不破。私謂：前七破前，後一生後。又出沒不同，沒四謂不破因果、殺生、算數、形相。而賸生後，已作今作、非冤非親及我物他物。最後第八復次總結無常。私謂：是則但有第一破第三專念，第二破第四憶想，第三破第七讀誦，賸有四五六。第七破第五修習，第八生後亦是賸文。名有出沒者，皆是隨宜，非凡所測。「我今於此非色法中」下，第三偏明色是無常。又二：先結前生後；次「是色無常」下，正辨無常，自有十句：一初生異、二時異、三味異、四力異、五形狀異、六果報異、七名字異、八壞合異、九次第生異、十次第滅異，皆舉外對辨，中間或略，前後皆對。

From "Good sons, conditioned dharmas" below, thirdly, directly answers what was asked, further having three parts: 1. discerning both headings of form and mind together; 2. specifically explaining the impermanence of mind; 3. specifically explaining the impermanence of form. The older [commentaries] say: There are three aggregates in total, citing the "Pure Conduct" [Chapter] which says, "Dharmas of form, dharmas of non-form, and dharmas neither of form nor non-form." They took that which is neither of form nor non-form to be the aggregate of the unmanifest (avijñapti). They also cite the "Holy Conduct" [Chapter] which says, "One who attains it only after the white-four-karma attains the unmanifest." This meaning is not so: neither form nor formless is actually the middle way where both are forgotten and both relinquished; how could it be the unmanifest? The unmanifest is conditioned; this error is not small. If it is only attained after the white-four-karma, this is the precept attained by reception, which is insufficient to prove the unmanifest of the middle way. Why so? Both manifest and unmanifest are defiled wholesome [factors]; an icchantika believes in manifest [action] but does not believe in the unmanifest. If relying on the Hīnayāna, the unmanifest is defiled; if relying on the present intention, the unmanifest is undefiled. As with the previously cited precept of holy conduct taking reception of the unmanifest as proof, what kind of unmanifest is it? They defend by saying: If you do not allow the meaning of the unmanifest, why does the text below say that speaking of the unmanifest is a topic of dispute? Answer: The Sarvāstivādins say the unmanifest is form; the Sautrāntikas (treatise masters) say the unmanifest is non-form. Each clings to a different [view], which results in dispute. If I now provisionally say there is an unmanifest, I ultimately do not reckon it as form or non-form, let alone reckoning each separately! Furthermore, if I provisionally say there is an unmanifest, I ultimately do not definitely cling to the Hīnayāna having it and the Mahāyāna lacking it, so there is no dispute. Moreover, according to the text, it only says "form and mind"; why forcefully speak of manifest and unmanifest? As for the Sarvāstivādins, mind is the mental king, and the mental factors arise following the king. Furthermore, consciousness is the mental king, and mental factors are saṃjñā and so forth. There are eleven forms, namely the five sense faculties, the five sense objects, and unmanifest form. The Sautrāntikas explain five sense faculties, five sense objects, and the four great elements as fourteen forms. However, this [text] merely explains the four great elements and the five forms, while the text below explains eleven forms. The reason it is so is that each reveals one side alternately, not concentrating exclusively on one place. From "Good sons, mind is called impermanent" below, secondly, specifically explains that mind is impermanent. This further has four parts: 1. impermanence; 2. refuting the clinging to permanence; 3. repeatedly explaining impermanence; 4. repeatedly refuting the clinging to permanence. First, explaining impermanence has four further iterations: 1. difference in taking objects; 2. difference in the six consciousnesses; 3. difference in the six sense objects; 4. difference in mental associations. From "Good sons, if the mind were permanent" below, secondly, refuting the clinging to permanence has four further iterations: 1. explaining that consciousness should not take an object alone; 2. the six consciousnesses should not be different; 3. what it depends on should not be different; 4. what it is called should not be different. From "Furthermore, good sons" below, thirdly, repeatedly explaining impermanence has five further iterations: 1. explaining the difference in minds of the three sages; 2. the difference in minds of the three ordinary beings; 3. the difference in minds of the three feelings; 4. the difference in minds of the three poisons; 5. the difference in minds of the three non-Buddhists. The first is as in the text. Next, in the minds of the three ordinary beings, what is called "at home and secluded" means the body is at home while the mind is secluded. From "Good sons, if the mind were permanent" below, fourthly, repeatedly refuting permanence directly refutes the previous eight iterations; the text also has eight, and though they do not correspond one-to-one, some refute the earlier, and some give rise to the later without refuting. I privately note: The first seven refute the earlier, and the last one gives rise to the later. Also, their appearances and absences are not the same; the four that are absent mean they do not refute cause and effect, killing life, calculation, and shape and appearance. Yet there are surplus [iterations] that give rise to what follows: what has already been done and what is now done, neither enemy nor kin, and my possessions and others' possessions. The final eighth iteration summarizes impermanence. I privately note: Thus there is only the first refuting the third (focused mindfulness), the second refuting the fourth (recollection), the third refuting the seventh (recitation); the fourth, fifth, and sixth are surplus. The seventh refutes the fifth (cultivation), and the eighth gives rise to what follows, also being surplus text. The presence and absence of names are all according to what is appropriate, not what ordinary beings can fathom. From "In this non-form dharma, I now" below, thirdly, specifically explains that form is impermanent. This also has two parts: first, concluding the preceding to introduce the following; next, from "This form is impermanent" below, directly discerning impermanence, which of itself has ten sentences: 1. difference in initial arising; 2. difference in time; 3. difference in taste; 4. difference in strength; 5. difference in shape; 6. difference in retribution; 7. difference in name; 8. difference in destruction and combination; 9. difference in sequential arising; 10. difference in sequential cessation. All are discerned in contrast by raising the external; the middle ones are sometimes abbreviated, while the preceding and following all contrast.