大般涅槃經疏 33.4

33.4

起卷是第六外道，文為二：初論義、後歸伏。論義有二番：初番問眾生何法故起常無常等六十二見。佛答：不知色故起常無常，乃至不知識故起常無常等。夫言色者，先業為因，今世父母衣食為緣，虛偽假合謂有定性，所以能起常無常等，乃至不知於識亦起諸見。次番更問知何色、知何識故不起諸見？佛言：知色但是因緣和合，無主無我，即無諸見，乃至知識亦復如是。「梵志言唯願為我」下，二是歸伏。文云捨故等者故名無明與愛，新名取有。解者為二。一云：無明與愛是過去，所以名故。取有現在，所以名新。愛是現在，那忽言故？乃強解云由行得愛。此解不然。二云：若據煩惱無明愛為新，若據業者取有為故。此亦不可，取是煩惱，那忽為新？無明愛新，那忽屬業？最為不可。又一解云：不須云過現及煩惱業，但論無明與愛是起身本，取從無明愛起即是枝末，所以名新。無前諸失。上云無明為父、貪愛為母，若尊敬此，死入無間。又云生死本際凡有二種，無明與愛。此豈非故？今約三世，現在望過去無明是故，未來望現在愛即是故。與觀師同，又不失三世。文云我今已得正法淨眼，或法眼淨，此應無異，特是左右之異。十五日後得羅漢者，悟有早晚。

The beginning of the fascicle concerns the sixth non-Buddhist [ascetic]. The text has two [parts]: first, the debate on doctrines; second, submission. The debate on doctrines has two rounds. In the first round, he asks on account of what dharma sentient beings give rise to the sixty-two views, such as permanence and impermanence. The Buddha replies: Because they do not understand form, they give rise to permanence and impermanence, up to: because they do not understand consciousness, they give rise to permanence and impermanence, and so forth. Now, as for form, past karma is the cause, and in the present life parents, clothing, and food are the conditions; falsely and provisionally combining, one claims that it has a fixed nature, and therefore one is able to give rise to [views of] permanence, impermanence, and so forth; up to: not understanding consciousness, one also gives rise to various views. In the next round, he asks further: Due to knowing what form and knowing what consciousness does one not give rise to various views? The Buddha says: Knowing that form is merely a combination of causes and conditions, without a master and without a self, one is then free of various views; up to: knowing consciousness is also like this. From "The brahmacārin said, 'I only wish that for my sake'" onward is the second [part], submission. Where the text says "abandoning the old", and so forth: "old" refers to ignorance and craving; "new" refers to grasping and becoming. Commentators provide two [explanations]. One says: Ignorance and craving are of the past, so they are called "old"; grasping and becoming are of the present, so they are called "new". [Objection:] Craving belongs to the present; how could it suddenly be called "old"? They then forcibly explain that through karmic formations one obtains craving. This explanation is not so. The second says: If based on afflictions, ignorance and craving are new; if based on karma, grasping and becoming are old. This too is impermissible: grasping is an affliction, so how could it be new? If ignorance and craving are new, how could they belong to karma? This is most impermissible. Yet another explanation says: There is no need to speak of past and present or afflictions and karma; simply discussing it, ignorance and craving are the root of the arising of the body, and grasping arises from ignorance and craving, so it is the branches and foliage—hence it is called "new". This avoids the previous faults. Above it was said that ignorance is the father and covetous craving is the mother; if one reveres them, at death one enters avīci. It is also said that there are generally two kinds of root bounds of saṃsāra: ignorance and craving. How could these not be "old"? Now, in terms of the three periods of time, viewing from the present back to the past, ignorance is old; viewing from the future back to the present, craving is old. This agrees with Master Guan and also does not lose the three periods of time. The text says, "I have now attained the pure eye of the true Dharma," or "the purity of the Dharma-eye"; these should not differ, being merely a difference of phrasing. That he attained arhatship after fifteen days means that awakenings have their earlier and later [times].