說無垢稱經疏 3.152

3.152

贊曰：下別非也。於中有二：初顯二無我道理；後「夫說法者」下，明說法道理。初中復二：初明無我；後結無我，「法相如是豈可說」是。明無我中復二：初明眾生無我、後明法無我。此明眾生無我也。三世五蘊本無有我，無我計我，我增如垢，污本性故。過去諸法本無有情，執為有情，如塵坌染。現在諸法本無命者，執為命者，增生死故。現壽存活，名為命者。執此實有，即是執有實生死故。或彼執現有生有死，故有命者。今離生死，故無命者。未來諸法無數取趣，執有現在，前際命根斷已，生於後際六道之中。斷者，空無之義。既都無前後實際，何得有實數取趣耶？此四無我，同《般若論》，亦與《勝鬘》如來藏章所說四同。空理義云：世俗諦有，可有四種。勝義諦空，何得有四？故說勝義，應說四空。應理義云：世俗諦中，四亦無實。依勝義諦，依他圓成亦無實四。故依勝義，應說四空。聲聞說法，非陳四有；今汎談諸法性離人離法，故說四空。古人倒錯，取新准知。

Commentary: Below is the specific censure. In this there are two parts: first, revealing the principle of the two kinds of selflessness; later, beginning with ‘For one who expounds the Dharma,’ explaining the principle of expounding the Dharma. In the first part there are again two: first, explaining selflessness; later, concluding on selflessness, which is ‘the characteristic of phenomena is like this, how can it be spoken?’ In explaining selflessness there are again two: first, explaining the selflessness of sentient beings; later, explaining the selflessness of phenomena. This explains the selflessness of sentient beings. The five aggregates in the three periods of time are fundamentally devoid of a self; grasping at a self where there is no self, the self increases like dirt, defiling the original nature. Past phenomena are fundamentally devoid of sentient beings; conceiving them as sentient beings is like being soiled by dust. Present phenomena are fundamentally devoid of a living being (jīva); conceiving them as a living being increases saṃsāra. Present lifespan and survival are called a ‘living being.’ Grasping at this as truly existing is grasping at real birth and death. Alternatively, they grasp that there is currently birth and death, and therefore there is a living being. Now, being free from birth and death, there is no living being. Future phenomena lack an individual (pudgala); grasping that there is a present, after the life-faculty of the anterior limit is severed, one is born in the posterior limit among the six destinies. ‘Severed’ has the meaning of being empty and non-existent. Since there are completely no actual anterior and posterior limits, how could there be a real individual? These four kinds of selflessness are the same as in the Prajñā-śāstra and are also identical to the four spoken of in the Tathāgatagarbha chapter of the Śrīmālā-sūtra. According to the principle of emptiness: existing in conventional truth, there may be four kinds; but being empty in ultimate truth, how could there be four? Therefore, when speaking of the ultimate, one should speak of the four as empty. According to the principle of the reasonable: in conventional truth, the four are also not real; relying on ultimate truth, dependent nature (paratantra) and perfected nature (pariniṣpanna) also lack the four in reality. Therefore, relying on the ultimate truth, one should speak of the four as empty. When the Śrāvaka expounded the Dharma, he was not setting forth the four as existent; here, broadly discussing how the nature of phenomena transcends both person and phenomena, [Vimalakīrti] therefore spoke of the four as empty. The ancients were confused; take the new rendering as the standard to understand this.