金光明最勝王經疏 2.75

2.75

贊曰：此見濁也。諸經論中所說我見有多不同，如《成唯識義燈》廣說，今但依文略解。言我見者，《瑜伽》八十三總有八種，此但舉五：一我見，論云「依五取蘊，我我所見現前行故。」今者此文既別說我我所見，即總別異，瑜伽據總、此通總別。此言我見，即無我我所。人見，即有情見，謂諸賢聖如實了知唯有此法更無餘故。又復有愛著故。眾生見，即數取趣見，謂能數數往取諸趣，無厭足故。此三依羅什譯，云「我、人、眾生」。壽者見，即《瑜伽》云命者，謂即壽和合，現存活故，名為命者。依天親菩薩《般若論》云「我、眾生、命者」。解云：見五蘊差別，一一陰是我。如是妄取，是名我見。此意總計三世五蘊差別為我見，身相續不斷是名眾生。此計五蘊從前際來相續不斷，故名眾生。一報命根不斷住故是命者，此計現在現有命故。命根斷已後生六道，是名壽者，此見未來生壽更起故。此依五蘊總別異故。養育者，即養育現在，能作士夫用故。又能增長後有業故。邪見者，即五見中邪見。我我所見，謂依五蘊起十五見等。斷常見者，即是邊見，斷謂七斷滅，常謂四遍常等。復言等者，等取見惑取見及隨煩惱。略無劫濁，以其外境非所化故、非惡體故，略不舉之。

The commentary says: This is the view defilement (dṛṣṭikaṣāya). What is said concerning the view of a self in various sūtras and treatises varies greatly, as explained in detail in the Cheng weishi yideng. Now, I merely explain briefly according to the text. Regarding the view of a self: in the eighty-third fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, there are eight kinds in total; here only five are cited: 1. The view of a self: the treatise says, “Based on the five grasping aggregates, the views of self and what belongs to self operate manifested.” Now, since this text separately speaks of “the view of self and what belongs to self,” there is a distinction between general and specific: the Yogācārabhūmi relies on the general, whereas here it encompasses both general and specific. Saying “view of a self” here means [a self] without “self and what belongs to self.” 2. The view of a person, that is, the view of a sentient being: this means the noble and holy ones know in accordance with reality that there are only these dharmas and nothing else whatsoever. Furthermore, because there is grasping attachment. 3. The view of a sentient being, that is, the view of a recurring transmigrator (pudgala), meaning being capable of repeatedly going and taking birth in various destinies without satiation. These three follow Kumārajīva's translation, which renders them “self, person, sentient being.” 4. The view of a soul: this is what the Yogācārabhūmi calls a “living being” (jīva); that is, through the conjunction of lifespan, currently existing and living, hence called a “living being.” Relying on Bodhisattva Vasubandhu’s Commentary on the Prajñāpāramitā, which says, “Self, sentient being, living being.” The explanation says: Seeing the differences among the five aggregates, one takes each aggregate to be a self. Such false grasping is called the view of a self. The meaning here is that universally calculating the differences among the five aggregates across the three periods of time is the view of a self. The physical continuity without interruption is called a sentient being. This calculates that the five aggregates have continued without interruption from the prior limit, hence called a sentient being. The uninterrupted abiding of the life-faculty of a single karmic retribution is a living being; this calculates that life is currently present in the present. After the life-faculty is severed, one is reborn subsequently in the six destinies: this is called a soul (āyuṣmat); this sees that life in a future birth arises again. This is based on the distinctions between general and specific among the five aggregates. 5. A nourisher: that is, nourishing the present, being able to perform human functions. Furthermore, it can increase karma for future existence. 6. Wrong views: that is, wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi) among the five views. 7. The view of self and what belongs to self: that is, giving rise to the fifteen views and so forth based on the five aggregates. 8. The views of annihilationism and eternalism: these are extreme views (antagrāhadṛṣṭi); annihilation refers to the seven kinds of annihilationism, and permanence refers to the four kinds of universal eternalism, etc. Further saying “and so forth” encompasses grasping at views, grasping at precepts and vows, as well as secondary afflictions. The kalpa defilement (kalpakaṣāya) is omitted in brief, because the external realm is not that which is to be transformed, nor is it the substance of evil; therefore, it is omitted and not mentioned.