大般涅槃經疏 32.17

32.17

「外道眾中復有富那」下，第五外道，彼之所執即是邊見。雖有其執，恐有屈滯，不敢述之，故且舉問。就文有二：初論義、後歸伏。此初論義，自有四番。此即初番，舉六十二見問。六十二見，有二解：一云身見邊見共六十二。何者？身見五十六，邊見有六。約於五陰各有四執，即色、離色、亦即亦離、不即不離。餘四例然，則為二十。欲界、色界則為四十，無色無色但說四陰。四四十六，故知身見有五十六。邊見六者，謂三界中各有斷常，以足身見成六十二。故《大品》云「譬如我見攝六十二見。」二直就邊見自六十二，現在世中即色為我則色滅我斷，離色為我則色滅我常。亦即亦離、亦斷亦常、不即不離則不斷不常。四陰亦然，則我二十。去來例然，則成六十。雖有六十不出斷常，故以斷常而標其首，為六十二。今文中云常無常者則是過去，有邊無邊則據未來。此言邊者非謂闊陜竪論分際，故是彼邊。如去不如去者，據佛滅後，乃計如來即色涅槃畢竟永滅，此是如去。若身不滅，是不如去。亦如去亦不如去等（云云）。足前成六十。復云是身是命，即常見。身異命異，即斷見。合成六十二見。而此文云如來滅後者，他人不見此。既不許約如來作二十計，即自解云：我如色來，即如色去、不如色去？故云如去不如去。佛即答之：我不作此說。「梵志言今者見何罪過」下，第二問此有何過而不為說？佛答，明此是見取之過，故不作說。「瞿曇若見如是罪過」下，第三問如來何所見著、何所說耶？佛答之，先遣見著之言、後明就見能說。「瞿曇云何」下，第四重責見說。佛乃廣答，又二：先正答、後更反責以出其相。

From "Among the assembly of non-Buddhists there was also Pūrṇa..." downward is the fifth non-Buddhist. What he clings to is precisely extreme views. Although he holds these attachments, fearing that he might be bested and stymied, he does not dare to state them directly, and so merely raises them as questions. Regarding the text, there are two parts: first the debate on doctrines, and later the submission. Here in the first part, the debate on doctrines, there are naturally four exchanges. This is the first exchange, raising the sixty-two views to question him. Regarding the sixty-two views, there are two explanations. One says: the view of personal identity (satkāyadṛṣṭi) and extreme views together make sixty-two. How so? The view of personal identity has fifty-six, and extreme views have six. With respect to the five aggregates, each has four attachments: identical with form, separate from form, both identical and separate, and neither identical nor separate. The other four aggregates follow the same pattern, making twenty. The desire realm and the form realm make forty; the formless realm has only four aggregates. Four times four is sixteen; hence we know that the view of personal identity has fifty-six. The six extreme views refer to the three realms each having annihilation and permanence, which added to the view of personal identity make sixty-two. Thus the *Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says: "Just as the view of a self subsumes the sixty-two views." Second, directly with respect to extreme views, there are by themselves sixty-two: In the present lifetime, taking form to be the self means that when form perishes, the self is annihilated; taking what is separate from form to be the self means that when form perishes, the self is permanent; both identical and separate means both annihilated and permanent; neither identical nor separate means neither annihilated nor permanent. The other four aggregates are also like this, making twenty for the self. Past and future follow the same pattern, making sixty. Although there are sixty, they do not go beyond annihilation and permanence, so annihilation and permanence are marked at their head, making sixty-two. Now in the text, 'permanent and impermanent' refers to the past, while 'finite and infinite' is based on the future. The word 'limit' (finite) here does not refer to breadth or narrowness, but treats demarcation vertically; hence it is that limit. 'Such-gone and not such-gone' (tathāgata or not) is based on after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, postulating that the Tathāgata enters nirvāṇa identical with form and is completely and permanently extinguished; this is 'such-gone'. If the body is not extinguished, it is 'not such-gone'. 'Both such-gone and not such-gone', and so forth. Adding these to the previous ones makes sixty. Furthermore, saying 'this body is the life-principle' is the view of permanence; 'the body is different from the life-principle' is the view of annihilation. Together they form the sixty-two views. Yet this text says 'after the Tathāgata's extinction', which others do not see. Since they do not permit formulating twenty attachments with respect to the Tathāgata, they explain it themselves: 'Do I go like form, that is, go like form or not go like form?' Hence it is called 'such-gone and not such-gone'. The Buddha then answered him: 'I do not make such a statement.' From "The brahma-faring one said: 'What fault do you now see...'" downward is the second question: what fault is there in this that you do not speak of it? The Buddha answered, clarifying that this is the fault of attachment to views, which is why he does not speak of it. From "'Gautama, if you see such faults...'" downward is the third, asking what the Tathāgata sees and clings to, and what he speaks of. The Buddha answered him, first dispensing with the words 'seeing and clinging to', and later clarifying what he can speak of according to seeing. From "'Gautama, how...'" downward is the fourth, re-examining what is seen and spoken of. The Buddha then answered extensively, again in two parts: first he answers directly, and later he turns the questioning back to disclose its characteristics.