摩訶止觀 5.209

5.209

世講者，謂：「有」是見，「無」非是見；「亦有亦無」是見，「非有非無」非是見。此語違經負心。經云：「依止此諸見，具足六十二。」如汝解者，數則欠少。《中論》破自、他性，有是自性；對有說無，無是他性。若有若無皆是性，何意無非是見？又此無既非證理之無，寧得非見？諸外道本劫本見，末劫末見，介爾計謂是事實，餘妄語；增見長非，吾我毒盛；捉頭拔髮，構造生死。如長爪雖不受一切法，而受於不受，不識苦集；佛以一責，墮二負處。高著外道尚未免見，云何底下謬謂為是？今判此並屬單四見攝也。

Ordinary lecturers claim: ''Existence' is a view, but 'nonexistence' is not a view; 'both existence and nonexistence' is a view, but 'neither existence nor nonexistence' is not a view.' These words contradict the scriptures and betray their own minds. A scripture says: 'Relying upon these views, they are fully sixty-two.' According to your explanation, the number would fall short. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā refutes svabhāva and parabhāva: existence is svabhāva; spoken in opposition to existence, nonexistence is parabhāva. Since both existence and nonexistence are bhāva/nature, on what basis would nonexistence not be a view? Furthermore, since this nonexistence is not the nonexistence of realized principle, how could it not be a view? The tīrthikas, with their primary kalpa-primary views and final kalpa-final views, with the slightest thought calculate and say, 'This alone is the truth, all else is false speech'; augmenting views and increasing wrongs, their poison of 'I' and 'mine' is virulent; grasping their heads and pulling out their hair, they fabricate saṃsāra. For example, although Dīrghanakha did not accept any dharmas, yet he accepted this non-acceptance and did not recognize suffering and origination; with a single rebuke by the Buddha, he fell into two points of defeat. When high and renowned tīrthikas still cannot escape views, why should inferior people erroneously claim this to be correct? We now judge that all of these fall under the simple four views.