大般涅槃經疏 16.8

16.8

「復次善男子」下，第三明無我以答前八復次計我。文為二：初總明無我、二正破彼執。初總唱色無色二章、次釋二章。前破常中亦先標次釋，釋之則廣；此中釋章門即略。前亦就色心破常，今破我亦就色心。「色非我」下，釋初章門中先明色非我。色何故非我？可壞可破故也。「非色之法」下，釋非色章。非色是心，心則無定，從境生故。樂緣觸心，心即便樂；苦及不苦不樂亦爾。既其從緣，故無常無我。「若諸外道」下，二正破所執上有八復次。今有九復次，亦不正相對。今是隨機不同，不破第一造作、第四作業，賸第一專念、第二憶想、第七三法。是則第三破第七、第四破第八、第五破第六、第六破第五、第八破第二、第九破第三。不次第者，但隨舉而破，應無別意。「善男子是諸外道」下，三結過訶責。凡舉兩譬：初小兒、後生盲。初小兒譬行非，生盲譬教非。如嬰孩唐戲終日，不營家業；外道亦爾，無益苦身，不成淨行，故文云「無慧方便」。次如生盲人，徒聞四譬，不識真乳；外道亦爾，闇信韋陀，寧知常樂？故文云「而問他言」（云云）。

From "Furthermore, good sons" below, thirdly, explains selflessness to answer the previous eight iterations reckoning a self. The text has two parts: first, generally explaining selflessness; second, directly refuting their clinging. First, it generally proclaims the two headings of form and formless; next, it explains the two headings. In the previous refutation of permanence, it also first posited and next explained, and the explanation was extensive; here, the explanation of the headings is brief. Previously it also refuted permanence with respect to form and mind; now, refuting the self is also with respect to form and mind. From "Form is not the self" below, in explaining the initial heading, it first explains that form is not the self. Why is form not the self? Because it can be destroyed and broken. From "Dharmas of non-form" below, it explains the heading of non-form. Non-form is the mind, and the mind is indeterminate, because it arises from sensory realms. When conditions of pleasure touch the mind, the mind is forthwith pleased; the same is true of suffering and neither-suffering-nor-pleasure. Since it arises from conditions, it is impermanent and selfless. From "If the non-Buddhists" below, secondly, directly refuting what was clung to above had eight iterations. Now there are nine iterations, which also do not correspond one-to-one. Here, they differ according to capacities: they do not refute the first (making) and fourth (undertaking action), while the first (focused mindfulness), second (recollection), and seventh (the three dharmas) are surplus. Thus the third refutes the seventh, the fourth refutes the eighth, the fifth refutes the sixth, the sixth refutes the fifth, the eighth refutes the second, and the ninth refutes the third. That they are not in sequence is simply that it refutes them as they are brought up, without any special intention. From "Good sons, these non-Buddhists" below, thirdly, concludes the fault and rebukes them. In all, it brings up two parables: first, a young child; later, one born blind. The first, the young child, is a parable for conduct being faulty; one born blind is a parable for doctrine being faulty. Just as an infant plays in vain all day long without managing the family enterprise, so too are the non-Buddhists: tormenting the body to no benefit, they fail to accomplish pure conduct; hence the text says "without wisdom and skillful means." Next, just as a person born blind hears four metaphors in vain without recognizing real milk, so too are the non-Buddhists: blindly believing in the Vedas, how could they know permanence and bliss? Hence the text says "and asked others, saying" (and so forth).