維摩義記 1.72.2

1.72.2

「是身無人為如水」者，宰用名人，水雖汎潤而無人體。 身亦如是，雖有作用而無人體。 就下總中，「是身不實四大為家」，攬大成身，所以不實。 大為神宅，故名為家。 上來約大明身無我，自下三句當相辨無。 「是身為空離我我所」，明無我體。 解釋有三：一內外分別。 約報名我。 外境是其我家所有，名為我所。 二就內總分別。 五陰和合集成假人，名之為我。 五陰是其我家所有，名為我所。 三就五陰相望分別。 說色為我，餘陰為所。 說受作我，餘陰為所。 如是一切。 云何無我及我所？ 分別有三：一無橫計十六神我名為無我，以無我故諸法便非我家所有，名無我所，如《毘曇》說。 二假眾生中無有我性名為無我，假名法中無有定性名無我所，如《成實》說。 第三假名人相令無名為無我，假名相全無所有名無我所。 此義如下〈觀生品〉說。 今言如空離我我所，含此多義此無我體。 自下兩句明無我用。 「是身無知如草木」等，約就心法明無我用。 現見有知，云何言無？ 法有四重：一事、二法、三理、四實。 陰界入等事相分別，名之為事。 苦無常等諸法之數，說以為法。 破相之空，名之為理。 非有非無如來藏性，說以為實。 此四重中，約初事門，其實有知； 就法推求，知則無知。 是義云何？ 一念之心具足四相，初生、次住、終異、後滅。 此四相中何者是知？ 若生是知，餘三應非； 若餘非知，生亦應非。 乃至滅相，類亦同然。 若使四相各別是知，便是四念別知四法，何關一念具足四相？ 若使四相各別非知，四相和合方為知者，非知共聚云何能知？ 如一盲不見，雖伴眾盲豈有見理？ 又復四相無和合義，生相現時餘相未來，共誰和合？ 住相現時，生相已謝，餘二未現，與誰和合？ 乃至滅相現前之時，餘相已謝，復與誰合？ 是故進退都無合義，何處生知？ 就法如是。 就理推求，法相尚無，知復安寄？ 就實以求，破相之理亦不可得，況法與知。 云何叵得？ 法若曾有，可對說無。 由未不有，對何說無？ 是故亦無無相可存。 此四重中，今據後三，故說無知。 現見此身有動有止，云何無知？ 故復舉草木事類以顯無動。 而無知事同草木不動，無知猶如瓦礫。 「是身無作風力轉」者，約就色法明無我用。 進止施為但是風轉，非是我作。 無我如是。 次論不淨，句別有八：初之一句正顯不淨，後七更以餘義助顯。 就初句中，「是身不淨」，當相正舉。 「穢惡充滿」，釋以顯之。 不淨有五：一種子不淨，是身過去結業為種，現在父母精血為種。 二住處不淨，在母腹中生藏之下、熟藏之上安置己體。 三自體不淨，三十六物集成己體。 四自相不淨，九孔常流。 五畢竟不淨，此身死已，虫食成糞、火燒成灰、埋為為土，究竟推求無一淨相。 今言不淨穢惡充滿，即是五中自體不淨，餘略不舉。 下以餘義助顯不淨，謂以無常苦無我等而助顯之。 又苦無常空無我等，不淨法故，亦名不淨。 於中初句以無常義而顯不淨，其次五句以其苦義而顯不淨，末後一句以空無我而顯不淨。 就初句中，「是身虛偽」，是性無常。 因緣虛集而無性實，名曰虛偽。 虛偽無性，說何為常？ 名性無常。 此破常性。 「雖假衣食必歸磨滅」，是相無常。 前後遷變是無常相，破去常相，無常為體，身云何淨？ 次五以苦顯不淨中，初三以其老病死苦而顯不淨，次一以其四大違苦而顯不淨，後一五陰生滅之苦而顯不淨。 就前三中，「是身為災百一病惱」，是病苦也。 一大不調百一病生，四大不調四百四病同時俱作，今約一大且言百一。 「是身如丘井為老所逼」，是老苦也。 高丘必頹、深井必滿、有身必老，故取為喻。 為老所逼，約喻顯法，亦得名為辨法同喻。 「是身不定為要當死」，是死苦也。 此前三竟，亦應說生苦，微故不論。

"This body is without a person, like water": governing function is called "person"; though water inundates and moistens, it has no personal entity. The body is also like this: although it has functions, it lacks a personal entity. In the general summary below, "this body is unreal, taking the four great elements as its dwelling": it brings together the great elements to form a body, hence it is unreal. The great elements are the lodging of consciousness, and so are called a "dwelling." Above, based on the great elements, it explained that the body is without self; from here down, three sentences distinguish non-existence directly with respect to characteristics. "This body is empty, free from self and what belongs to self" clarifies the absence of the entity of a self. There are three explanations: First, distinguishing internal and external. Based on karmic retribution, it is called "self." External objects are possessions of my house, called "what belongs to self." Second, distinguishing according to the internal totality. The five skandhas unite and assemble to form a provisional person, called "self." The five skandhas are possessions of my house, called "what belongs to self." Third, distinguishing by comparing the five skandhas with one another. Form is spoken of as self, and the remaining skandhas as what belongs to self. Sensation is spoken of as self, and the remaining skandhas as what belongs to self. And so on for all of them. How are there no self and no what belongs to self? There are three distinctions: First, the absence of the arbitrarily conceptualised sixteen divine selves is called "no-self"; because there is no self, dharmas are not the possessions of my house, which is called "no what belongs to self," as explained in the Abhidharma. Second, the absence of an essential nature of a self within provisional sentient beings is called "no-self"; the absence of a fixed nature within provisional dharmas is called "no what belongs to self," as explained in the *Tattvasiddhi*. Third, causing the marks of a provisional person to become non-existent is called "no-self"; the utter non-existence of provisional marks is called "no what belongs to self." This meaning is as explained below in the "Chapter on Contemplating Sentient Beings." Now, saying that it is like space, free from self and what belongs to self, contains these many meanings; this is the absence of the entity of a self. The two sentences below clarify the absence of the functioning of a self. "This body is without sentience, like grass and trees, etc.," clarifies the absence of the functioning of a self with reference to mental dharmas. Manifestly seeing that there is sentience, how can one say there is none? Dharmas have four levels: first, phenomena; second, dharmas; third, principle; fourth, reality. The distinguishing of phenomenal marks such as the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas is called "phenomena." Categories of dharmas such as suffering and impermanence are spoken of as "dharmas." The emptiness that refutes characteristics is called "principle." The nature of the tathāgatagarbha, neither existent nor non-existent, is spoken of as "reality." Among these four levels, with respect to the initial approach of phenomena, there is actually sentience; investigating in terms of dharmas, sentience is without sentience. What is the meaning of this? The mind of a single thought-moment is fully endowed with four characteristics: first arising, next persisting, then changing, and finally ceasing. Among these four characteristics, which one is sentience? If arising is sentience, the other three should not be; if the others are not sentience, arising should also not be. And so forth down to the characteristic of ceasing, which is likewise the same. If the four characteristics were each separately sentience, there would be four thought-moments separately knowing four dharmas—how would this pertain to a single thought-moment being fully endowed with four characteristics? If the four characteristics are each separately not sentience, and only when the four characteristics unite is there sentience, how could a gathering together of what is non-sentient be able to know? Just as a single blind person cannot see, even if accompanying a crowd of blind people, how could there be any principle of seeing? Furthermore, the four characteristics have no principle of union: when the characteristic of arising appears, the remaining characteristics have not yet arrived—with what does it unite? When the characteristic of persisting appears, the characteristic of arising has already passed away and the other two have not yet appeared—with what does it unite? And so forth until the characteristic of ceasing appears, the other characteristics have already passed away—with what again does it unite? Therefore, whether advancing or retreating, there is no principle of union at all; whence could sentience arise? In terms of dharmas, it is like this. Investigating in terms of principle, the characteristics of dharmas do not even exist, so where could sentience find a footing? Seeking in terms of reality, the principle that refutes characteristics is also ungraspable, let alone dharmas and sentience. How is it ungraspable? If dharmas had once existed, one could speak of non-existence in contrast [to them]. Since they have never existed, against what would one speak of non-existence? Therefore, there is also no characteristic of non-existence that can be maintained. Among these four levels, relying now on the latter three, it is therefore said to be without sentience. Manifestly seeing that this body has movement and rest, how can it be without sentience? Therefore, it again adduces the examples of grass and trees to show the absence of movement. Being without sentience, its activities are like grass and trees in not moving, and its lack of sentience is like tiles and stones. "This body is without action, turned by the force of wind" clarifies the absence of the functioning of a self with reference to physical dharmas. Advancing, stopping, and performing actions are merely turned by the wind, not made by a self. No-self is like this. Next is discussed impurity; there are eight distinct phrases: the first phrase directly shows impurity, and the latter seven further use other meanings to assist in showing it. Within the first phrase, "this body is impure" directly raises it according to its characteristic. "Filled with foulness and evil" explains it to show it. There are five impurities: First, impurity of seed: this body takes past binding karma as its seed, and the present semen and blood of the parents as its seed. Second, impurity of dwelling: inside the mother's womb, resting beneath the stomach and above the intestines, one's body is placed. Third, impurity of self-nature: the thirty-six substances assemble to form one's body. Fourth, impurity of self-characteristics: the nine apertures constantly flow. Fifth, ultimate impurity: after this body dies, eaten by worms it becomes dung, burnt by fire it becomes ashes, buried it becomes earth; thoroughly investigating it, there is not a single characteristic of purity. Now, saying that it is impure and filled with foulness and evil refers to the impurity of self-nature among the five; the others are omitted and not raised. Below, other meanings are used to assist in showing impurity, meaning that impermanence, suffering, no-self, and so forth assist in showing it. Moreover, suffering, impermanence, emptiness, no-self, and so forth, because they are impure dharmas, are also called impure. Among them, the first phrase shows impurity by means of the meaning of impermanence; the next five phrases show impurity by means of the meaning of suffering; the final phrase shows impurity by means of emptiness and no-self. Within the first phrase, "this body is false and deceptive" is impermanence of nature. It is falsely assembled from causes and conditions without real nature, hence called "false and deceptive." Being false, deceptive, and without nature, what could be spoken of as permanent? This is called impermanence of nature. This refutes a permanent nature. "Though dependent on clothing and food, it must inevitably return to destruction" is impermanence of characteristics. Changing and altering before and after is the characteristic of impermanence; refuting the characteristic of permanence, impermanence is its entity—how could the body be pure? In the next five [phrases] showing impurity by suffering: the first three show impurity through the sufferings of old age, sickness, and death; the next one shows impurity through the suffering of discord among the four great elements; the last one shows impurity through the suffering of the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas. Among the first three, "this body is a calamity, afflicted by a hundred and one diseases" is the suffering of sickness. When one great element is out of harmony, a hundred and one diseases arise; when the four great elements are out of harmony, four hundred and four diseases all arise simultaneously; now, taking one great element, it mentions only a hundred and one. "This body is like a mound or a well, pressed by old age" is the suffering of old age. A high mound must collapse, a deep well must become filled, and having a body one must grow old, so these are taken as metaphors. "Pressed by old age" clarifies the dharma by the metaphor, and can also be called distinguishing the dharma as identical to the metaphor. "This body is impermanent, bound certainly to die" is the suffering of death. These first three are finished; the suffering of birth should also be mentioned, but because it is subtle, it is not discussed.