俱舍論頌疏論本 30.3

30.3

The Vātsīputrīyas also asked: "Why did the Buddha not say that a life-principle is completely non-existent?" The reply: "Also because he took into consideration the disposition of the questioner. The questioner regarded the continuum of causes and effects of the aggregates as the life-principle, and asked based on this. If the World-Honoured One had answered that the life-principle is completely non-existent, the questioner would have fallen into wrong views, thinking there are no causes and effects; hence the Buddha did not say so." They also asked: "Why did the Buddha not state that the life-principle is a nominal designation?" The reply: "Because he considered that that questioner was not yet able to understand the principle of dependent origination and was not a suitable vessel for receiving the true Dharma of true emptiness; therefore he did not speak to him of a conventionally existent life-principle. The principle must certainly be like this. As the World-Honoured One told Ānanda: 'The wanderer of non-Buddhist tradition, Vatsagotra (here translated as 'Vātsīputra'), came to where I was and asked: "Do I, in the world, have a self, or do I not have a self?"' The Buddha did not declare an answer for him. Why? If he had declared that it exists, it would contradict the true principle of Dharma, because in reality there is no self. If he had declared that it does not exist, it would have increased his delusion, and he would have thought that a self existed before and now does not. Compared to the delusion of having a self, this delusion of not having a self is an even greater fault. If one grasps that a self exists, one falls into the extreme of eternalism; if one grasps that a self does not exist, one falls into the extreme of annihilationism. Grasping that the self is eternal, one cultivates merit for the self; grasping that the self is annihilated, one then thinks the body does not exist, so why cultivate any more merit? Regarding the gravity of these two, as a sūtra says: 'Better to give rise to a view of self as large as Mount Sumeru, than to give rise to an annihilationist view as small as a mustard seed.' The above summarizes these questions and answers based on the treatise.