大般涅槃經疏 32.17

32.17

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.