中觀論疏 10.54

10.54

「問曰」下，釋第二段五偈。前分五偈開為四門，今釋四則四。初離門為二：第一上半偈取外人意、第二偈正破。今釋此二即二也。前釋第一。外云：古今我一，故今我猶是昔我。今身非昔身，故不得貴賤同軀、人天一體。「答曰」下，釋第二一行偈正破。偈本為二：初半行正破、次半行結破。今前釋第一，文開四別：一正破、二救、三破救、四總結。破中初總非。「何以故」下，釋非。文三：初法說，牒彼義，作無用破；「如治俗人罪」下，次舉喻破；「五陰相續」下，合喻。「問曰」下，破第二救，又三，謂法、喻、合。正明我有用，非是無用。言有用者，有二種用：一所依用、二造作用。法譬合中皆有二用，細尋文易解知也。「答曰」下，第三破救。十難開為五別：一破作者、二破見者、三重破作者、四重破見者、五總破有我。初又二：初奪破我，明無有作義。「若我是作者」，第二縱破。「若見者是我」下，破見者是我，亦二：初奪破，但是眼見，非是我見。「若見者是我」下，第二縱破，縱我能見，應不得餘塵也。「若謂如刈者」下，第三重破作者，亦二：初奪破；「若謂作者」下，第二縱破。「若謂右眼見」下，第四重破見者，亦二：第一竝破；「復次有我者言」下，第二自破，又為二：初釋非我用、次明自破。「復次若有顛倒」下，第五總破有我，又開二別：一者正破、二遮通。正破又三，謂法、譬、合，如文。「若謂無我」下，第二遮通。遮通者，外云：汝若言始終一我有顛倒過者，汝義雖復無我，而始終一五陰，亦應有顛倒過；若始終一陰無顛倒過者，我義亦然。今遮外此通，名為遮通。就文為四：一牒外難而總非。「何以故」下，正釋非，明五陰生滅非常，是非一陰，故無有顛倒過也。「若始終一我」下，第三重顯外過。「五陰相續」下，第四重顯內無過。「汝前說離受別有受者」下，第四大段總結。「若謂離受別有我」者下，釋偈中離身無有我，是事為已成也，即是釋第二結破也。「若謂離身無我」下，釋偈中第二破即陰我。偈中為二：初半偈取意、次一偈正破，今還釋此二也。半偈取意中有二句：第一句云「若謂身即我」，次句云「若都無有我」，今還牒二句，「若謂離身無我」，牒第一句；「但身是我」，牒第二都無句。「是亦不然」下，釋第二開兩門破即陰。文易知也。「若謂離受」下，第三釋重破離。「是故我不離受」下，釋第四總結破。

From "The question says" downward, [the commentary] explains the second section consisting of five verses. Previously, the five verses were divided into four gates; now, in explaining the four, they are four accordingly. First, the gate of detachment has two [parts]: first, the first half-verse captures the external opponent's intention; second, the [next] verse directly refutes it. Now, in explaining these two, there are two parts. The first explains the first. The external opponent says: Past and present self are one, so the present self is still the former self. The present body is not the former body, so it cannot be that the noble and base share the same body, or that humans and devas share one substance. From "The answer says" downward, it explains the second [part], a full verse directly refuting it. The root verse has two parts: the first half-verse directly refutes it, and the next half-verse concludes the refutation. Now, in first explaining the first part, the text opens into four distinct sections: 1. the direct refutation, 2. the rescue, 3. refuting the rescue, and 4. the overall conclusion. In the refutation, first it generally rejects it. From "Why?" downward, it explains the rejection. The text has three parts: first, a statement of principle, taking up their position and refuting it as useless; from "Just as punishing a commoner's crime" downward, next, raising an analogy to refute it; from "The continuum of the five aggregates" downward, applying the analogy. From "The question says" downward, the second [part], rescuing, also has three: principle, analogy, and application. It directly clarifies that the self is useful, not useless. As for having use, it has two kinds of use: 1. the use of being a support, and 2. the use of performing actions. In the principle, analogy, and application, both uses are present; seeking carefully through the text, they are easy to understand. From "The answer says" downward, the third [part] refutes the rescue. Ten objections are opened into five distinct [arguments]: 1. refuting the agent, 2. refuting the seer, 3. re-refuting the agent, 4. re-refuting the seer, and 5. generally refuting the existence of a self. The first also has two: first, an absolute refutation of the self, clarifying that it has no sense of acting. "If the self were the agent" is the second, a concessive refutation. From "If the seer were the self" downward, it refutes that the seer is the self, also in two: first, an absolute refutation, [showing that] it is merely the eye that sees, not that the self sees. From "If the seer were the self" downward, second, a concessive refutation: conceding that the self could see, it should not apprehend other objects. From "If it is said that just like a reaper" downward, the third [argument] re-refutes the agent, also in two: first, an absolute refutation; from "If it is said that the agent" downward, second, a concessive refutation. From "If it is said that the right eye sees" downward, the fourth [argument] re-refutes the seer, also in two: first, an analogous refutation; from "Furthermore, those who hold there is a self say" downward, second, a self-refutation, which again has two: first, explaining that it is not the operation of a self; next, showing the self-refutation. From "Furthermore, if there were delusion" downward, the fifth [argument] generally refutes the existence of a self, also opened into two distinct parts: 1. direct refutation, and 2. blocking the resolution. The direct refutation also has three: principle, analogy, and application, as in the text. From "If it is said that without a self" downward, the second [part] blocks the resolution. As for blocking the resolution: the external opponent says, "If you say that a single self from beginning to end has the fault of delusion, then although your position has no self, having a single continuum of five aggregates from beginning to end should likewise have the fault of delusion; if a single continuum of aggregates has no fault of delusion, my position is also like this." Now blocking this resolution of the opponent is called "blocking the resolution." In the text, there are four [parts]: 1. taking up the external objection and generally rejecting it. From "Why?" downward, it directly explains the rejection, clarifying that the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates is impermanent and not a single aggregate, so there is no fault of delusion. From "If there were a single self from beginning to end" downward, third, re-manifesting the external opponent's fault. From "The continuum of the five aggregates" downward, fourth, re-manifesting that the internal [Buddhist position] is without fault. From "You previously said that detached from appropriation there is a distinct appropriator" downward, the fourth major section concludes overall. From "If one says that detached from appropriation there is a distinct self" downward, it explains the verse's "Detached from the body there is no self; this matter is already established," which is explaining the second part concluding the refutation. From "If one says that detached from the body there is no self" downward, it explains the second [gate] in the verse, refuting the self as identical with the aggregates. In the verse there are two parts: the first half-verse captures the intention, and the next verse directly refutes it; now it likewise explains these two. In the half-verse capturing the intention, there are two lines: the first line says, "If one says the body is the self," and the next line says, "If there is no self at all." Now it likewise takes up the two lines: "If one says that detached from the body there is no self" takes up the first line; "and the body alone is the self" takes up the second line of "no self at all." From "This is also not so" downward, it explains the second [part], opening two gates to refute the identity with the aggregates. The text is easy to understand. From "If one says that detached from appropriation" downward, the third [part] explains the re-refutation of detachment. From "Therefore the self is not detached from appropriation" downward, the fourth [part] explains the overall concluding refutation.