大般涅槃經疏 16.8

16.8

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).