肇論新疏 3.406

3.406

Preserving the aggregates complies with principle yet on the contrary contravenes the scriptures. If one definitively permits attainment, there remain two senses: first, outside the five aggregates there must be an additional nature of sentient beings, such that the five aggregates are made to be extinguished, while the nature outside the aggregates is made to attain. Hence the treatise now says: "If indeed there were attainment..." Second, fearing that it contravenes the earlier scripture stating "exhausted within the five aggregates," how could it be permitted that outside the aggregates there is further a sentient nature? If so, it would follow that the five aggregates are not completely cut off and extinguished—either the coarse are extinguished while the subtle are preserved, or form is extinguished while mind is preserved. As for that which can attain, if it must be completely exhausted, who is that which can attain? Hence the treatise says: "If it must be confined to the five aggregates..." This principle having already made sense, it also contravenes the earlier scripture stating that the five aggregates are completely exhausted. Based on this, both preserving and extinguishing are in contravention, so it must be examined. The intent here is to clarify: the teachings of the three vehicles cut off and extinguish birth and death, transforming and attaining nirvāṇa, without knowing that the two extremes are non-dual; hence this question and answer is framed to cause one to realize that the delusional is itself the real.