金剛般若論會釋 1.92

1.92

「此我等想轉中，餘義猶未說」等者下，重解我執，分二，初、標未說方欲重明，後、正顯示。由法執中，既別配屬，我執四種猶未解，故標重解，正顯示四義我執。別有二解，一云，與彼天親論別，自體之我從前際來，相續不斷，取名我相；他身有情，是自體我之所取，故名眾生想；若取現在自我乃至壽住，名壽者相；若執取今身死已復生餘趣，名人想。第二顯他我為實有，餘三執自我三世實有，故成四執，皆分別執，故外道起。天親頌曰，「差別相續體，不斷至命住，後趣於異道，是我相四種」，初句我相，但執五蘊以為我故；不斷是第二句，執體前世以至今故；至命住是第三句，現存活故；後趣於異道是第四句，取未來故。彼依三世、總別執取，以分四執，與此不同。二云，此與彼同，此中取自體相續是我相者，即計五蘊為我想也；執現在我從前世我流轉至今，前世我是現在我之所取執，名眾生相，非是執他我而我所取；餘二可知。故知此論與彼論同，翻文稍異，義意無別。此依執者，合稱外道；彼依行相，故分四種。諸經兩論皆唯四我，唯《能斷》中，初對四法以明無我，乃有九無，後明執法若空若有，我執隨逐，但有四我。故此二論皆唯計四，三世、總別、自他異故，依單行相勝作用故。初但有九，如《樞要》說，上來二執顯多伏或，有智慧者，故能生信。天親論云，「謂離人、法相，是故說有智慧」，有智慧便足，何故復說持戒功德？為示現生實相差別義故，頌曰，「彼人依信心，恭敬生實相」，顯彼眾生唯無智慧無彼二執，但持戒等，信心恭敬亦生實相，故作是說。

From "Among the occurrences of such notions of self, the remaining meanings have not yet been stated" downwards, the grasping at self is explained again. This has two parts: first, indicating what has not yet been stated and is about to be clarified again; second, properly demonstrating it. Because within the grasping at phenomena these were already respectively correlated, but the four kinds of grasping at self had not yet been explained, it is indicated that they will be explained again, and the four meanings of grasping at self are properly demonstrated. There are two distinct explanations. The first states: In distinction from that treatise by Vasubandhu, the substantial self continues uninterrupted from past time, and this grasping is called the mark of a self; sentient beings in other bodies are what is grasped by this substantial self, and is therefore called the notion of a sentient being; if one grasps the present self as enduring up to the end of one's lifespan, it is called the mark of a living being; if one grasps that this present body, upon dying, is born again in other destinies, it is called the mark of a person. The second [mark] demonstrates that another self is substantially existent, while the remaining three grasp one's own self as substantially existent throughout the three times; thus they constitute four graspings, all of which are conceptually differentiated graspings, and therefore non-Buddhists give rise to them. Vasubandhu's verse says: "Substantial entity of differentiated continuity, / Uninterrupted up to the endurance of life, / Later proceeding to another path— / These are the four kinds of self-marks." The first line is the mark of a self, because one merely grasps the five aggregates as a self; 'uninterrupted' is the second line, grasping the entity from past lifetimes up to the present; 'up to the endurance of life' is the third line, because of current living existence; 'later proceeding to another path' is the fourth line, because it grasps the future. That [treatise] divides the four graspings based on the three times and general versus specific grasping, which differs from this. The second explanation states: This is identical to that. In this context, grasping the continuity of one's own entity as the mark of a self is precisely conceptualizing the five aggregates as the notion of a self; grasping that the present self transmigrates from a self of past lifetimes down to the present, such that the past self is what is grasped by the present self, is called the notion of a sentient being, not grasping another self as an object of one's own grasping; the remaining two are understood accordingly. Hence we know that this treatise is identical with that treatise; the translated text differs slightly, but the doctrinal intent has no distinction. What relies on the grasp-er is collectively termed 'non-Buddhists'; what relies on cognitive modes is therefore divided into four kinds. The sūtras and both treatises only have four selves; only in the *Vajracchedikā*, where selflessness is first clarified in contrast to four phenomena, are there nine absences, whereas later, when clarifying that whether one grasps phenomena as empty or existent, the grasping at self follows along, there are only four selves. Therefore, both of these treatises only calculate four, because the three times, general versus specific, and self versus other differ, and because it relies on the predominant function of a single cognitive mode. That the beginning only has nine is as stated in the *Khyōyō* (*Shuyao*). The preceding two graspings show that those with much subduing of delusion who possess wisdom are therefore able to generate faith. Vasubandhu's treatise states: "It means being free from the marks of person and phenomena; therefore it is said to have wisdom." If having wisdom is already sufficient, why mention further the merits of upholding the precepts? In order to demonstrate the distinctive meaning of generating the true mark in the present life, the verse states: "That person, relying on faithful mind / And reverence, generates the true mark." This reveals that those sentient beings merely lack wisdom and lack those two graspings; by merely upholding the precepts and so on, with faithful mind and reverence they also generate the true mark; hence it is stated in this way.