大般涅槃經疏 33.4

33.4

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].