大乘法苑義林章 4.44

4.44

第二釋名者，梵云薩迦耶達利瑟致。經部師言：薩是偽義，迦耶是身，達利瑟致是見。身是聚義，即聚集假。應言緣聚身起見，名為身見。佛遮當來薩婆多等執為有身見者故，說薩偽言。雖一薩言亦目於有，然今說是思誕提底薩故，薩言表偽。薩婆多云：薩是有義，迦耶等如前，雖是聚身而是實有。身者，自體之異名。緣此見，應名自體見。佛遮當來經部師等說為偽身者故說薩。有言：雖一薩言亦目於偽，今者應言阿悉提底薩故，薩言表有。大乘解云：應言僧吃爛底薩，便成移轉義。由此薩迦耶見大小乘別，大乘之意，心上所現似我之相，體非實有，是假法故。又體非全無，依他起性成所緣緣故。既非實有亦非虛偽，唯是依他移轉之法，我之所依。又本我無境，妄情執有，可言虛偽。依所變相境，可言為實有。非如餘宗定實定偽，故名移轉。法執正義，亦唯此見。故《佛地》云「所知障者，謂執遍計所執實法薩迦耶見而為上首故。」法我見亦同生我，此兼我所，不唯我見，說薩迦耶言故。

Second, explaining the name: in Sanskrit it is called satkāyadṛṣṭi. The Sautrāntika masters say: "sat means false; kāya means body; dṛṣṭi means view. 'Body' has the meaning of accumulation, which is an imputed accumulation. It should be said that producing a view that takes an accumulated body as its object is named 'body-view' (satkāyadṛṣṭi). Because the Buddha wished to refute future Sarvāstivādins and others who cling to it as an 'existent-body-view' (satkāyadṛṣṭi), he spoke the word sat with the meaning of 'false'. Although the single word sat also designates 'existent', yet what is spoken here is as a derivative of *sīdanti (decaying/perishing), and therefore the word sat signifies 'false'." The Sarvāstivādins say: "sat has the meaning of 'existent'; kāya and so forth are as before; although it is an accumulated body, it is substantially existent. 'Body' is an alternative name for self-substance (svabhāva). The view that takes this as its object should be called 'view of self-substance'. Because the Buddha wished to refute future Sautrāntika masters and others who speak of it as a 'false body', he spoke of sat. He said: although the single word sat also designates 'false', here it should be said to derive from *asti (is/exists), and therefore the word sat signifies 'existent'." The Mahāyāna explains: one should say *saṃkrānti for sat, which then yields the meaning of 'shifting/transmutation' (saṃkrānti). On this basis, the satkāyadṛṣṭi differs between the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The intent of the Mahāyāna is that the appearance resembling a self which is manifested upon the mind is not substantially existent in its nature, because it is an imputed phenomenon. Moreover, its nature is not completely nonexistent, because as the paratantra-svabhāva (dependent nature) it constitutes an objective condition (ālambanapratyaya). Since it is neither substantially existent nor falsely nonexistent, it is merely a dependent, shifting phenomenon, the basis for the self. Furthermore, the original self is a nonexistent object, and the deluded affect clings to it as existent, so it can be called falsely nonexistent; yet relying on the transformed objective image, it can be called existent. It is not like other schools which determinately hold it to be real or determinately hold it to be false; hence it is named 'shifting'. The orthodox doctrine of grasping at dharmas (dharma-grāha) is also solely this view. Therefore the Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra-śāstra] says: "The hindrance to the knowable refers to having the satkāyadṛṣṭi that grasps at substantially existent dharmas of imagined nature (parikalpita) as foremost." The view of a dharma-self is also the same as the view of a living-being self; this additionally includes the 'belonging to a self' (ātmadṛṣṭi and ātmīyadṛṣṭi), not only the view of a self, because the word satkāyā is spoken.