大般涅槃經疏 16.6

16.6

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.