中觀論疏 10.52

10.52

「若謂我即是」下第二五偈別破釋非。開為四別：初一行半破離陰我、次一行半破即陰我、次一偈重破離陰、後復一偈總結非即離。就初又二：上半取意立義、次一偈正破。上半取意者，我遍古今，不相作，但身異，故說言作耳。次一偈破，為二：初半正破、次半結破。初半破云：若我遍五道而身不遍，我通三世身不通者，離身何處有我？又若言我是本我，而身非本身，則我離身，何身處有耶？此即破小乘人犢子及假有體家。次半偈結者，上大乘觀中處處已破離陰我竟，今但略標，故云此事為已成也。「若謂身即我」下，第二次破即陰。亦開為二：初半牒外義、第二一偈正破。初有二句：第一句正改離捉即。「若都無我者」，釋此句不同。有人言：此是破也。汝既避前離破，立即義者，等是避破，何不言無耶？故云若都無有我。又釋：彼計我是常，身為無常。今身既是我，便都無有我，但是無常身耳，何處有我？又釋：離身既無，更不過二，若即是、若都無。此釋為正也。此偈望前合有二雙，謂即離一雙及有無一雙。合此二雙還成一雙，即離是有、都無是無，謂有無一雙也。餘二章破，如文可解。「若離身有我」下，此第三重破離。以計我者多謂我唯是一，但六道身異，如莎提比丘識唯是一而六道身異，故重破之。上半牒非、下半正破。前直明離身不見別有我，今明無身應當有我，故兩門破離其義異也。無身有我，可具二義：一者如〈本住品〉未受身前已有我；二者直令無身而有我也。第四章結破，為二：上半結非即離、次句結非有無，即前兩雙之義也。又初句結第一破離門、第二句結破即門、非無受結第三重破離門。非無結前破即中若都無有我門。「此是決定義」者，非即非離、非有非無，此是小乘中決定義也。以小乘中有假名我，故非是都無。

From "If it is said that the self is just [the body]" onward, the second group of five verses individually refutes and explains the negation. It is divided into four sections: the first verse and a half refutes a self apart from the aggregates; the next verse and a half refutes a self identical with the aggregates; the next single verse repeats the refutation of [a self] apart from the aggregates; the final verse concludes with a general negation of identity and difference. The first section also has two parts: the upper half takes the intended sense to establish the thesis; the next single verse properly refutes it. Taking the intended sense: the self pervades past and present without becoming each other; only the bodies differ, hence it is spoken of as "becoming". The next verse refutes it and has two parts: the first half properly refutes; the second half concludes the refutation. The first half refutes by saying: if the self pervades the five destinies while the body does not pervade, and the self extends through the three times while the body does not extend, then apart from the body where is there a self? Again, if it is said that the self is the original self while the body is not the original body, then the self is apart from the body; at what bodily locus could it exist? This refutes the Hīnayāna Vātsīputrīyas and the proponents of provisional existence possessing a substantial entity. The concluding second half of the verse means: above, throughout the Mahāyāna contemplation, a self apart from the aggregates has already been refuted everywhere, and now it is only briefly indicated; hence it says that this matter is already established. From "If it is said that the body is just the self" onward, the second section refutes [a self] identical with the aggregates. It is also divided into two: the first half cites the opponent's position; the second single verse properly refutes it. The first has two lines: the first line properly changes from "apart from" to grasping "identical with". "If there is entirely no self": the explanations of this line differ. Some say: this is a refutation. Since you avoid the earlier refutation of "apart from" and establish the thesis of "identical with", both being an evasion of refutation, why do you not say there is none? Therefore it says: "if there is entirely no self". Another explanation: they posit that the self is permanent and the body is impermanent. Now, since the body is just the self, then there is entirely no self; there is only an impermanent body—where is there a self? Another explanation: since there is none apart from the body, it goes no further than two: either it is identical, or there is entirely none. This explanation is correct. Compared with what precedes, this verse comprises two pairs: the pair of identity and difference, and the pair of existence and nonexistence. Combining these two pairs returns to a single pair: identity and difference are existence, and entirely none is nonexistence—that is, the pair of existence and nonexistence. The refutation in the remaining two sections can be understood from the text. From "If apart from the body there is a self" onward, this third section repeats the refutation of "apart from". Because those who posit a self mostly maintain that the self is solely one while only the bodies of the six destinies differ—just as the monk Sāti held that consciousness is solely one while the bodies of the six destinies differ—it is therefore refuted again. The upper half cites the error; the lower half properly refutes it. Previously it directly explained that apart from the body no distinct self is seen; now it explains that without a body there ought to be a self; hence the meanings of the two gates refuting "apart from" differ. "Without a body there is a self" can contain two meanings: first, as in the "Chapter on the Prior Entity", before receiving a body there is already a self; second, it directly allows that without a body there is a self. The fourth section concludes the refutation and has two parts: the upper half concludes the negation of identity and difference; the next line concludes the negation of existence and nonexistence, which are the meanings of the preceding two pairs. Furthermore, the first line concludes the first gate refuting "apart from"; the second line concludes the gate refuting "identical with"; "not without appropriation" concludes the third gate repeating the refutation of "apart from"; "not nonexistent" concludes the gate "if there is entirely no self" within the earlier refutation of "identical with". "This is the determinate doctrine": neither identical nor apart, neither existent nor nonexistent—this is the determinate doctrine within the Hīnayāna. Because within the Hīnayāna there is a provisionally designated self, it is not entirely nonexistent.