金剛般若經旨贊 1.62

1.62

如是我相。若隨總別。行相不同。乃有四種。若隨能起此。我相人合四。總名外道耶。取多是外道妄所起故。然其法相。亦有總別。總則四句。皆名法相。皆是迷真四種謗故。別謂四種不執有。殊法非法等。四種別故。一者法相。即諸聲聞。及大乘中內法凡夫。由處下位。不了法空。執有二取實法相體。即增益謗經。隨執執相。名之法相。論依起執人。名聲聞內法邪取。二非法相。即增上慢菩薩。聞遣相空。便撥真如。及諸功德。皆是空無究竟理。此即損滅謗。經隨執著相。名非法相。論依起執人。名增上慢菩薩邪趣故。三者相。即外道等。聞非有無。便執諸法亦有亦無二相違相。即相違謗。由此執故。迷真滅理。執有想定。為勝涅槃。經隨執行。故名為相。論隨執心所求之境。亦名世間共想定邪取。四者非相。即二乘等。不了諸法非非有無。便執諸法定非有無取。既非遮表。言成戲論。即戲論謗。既執諸法非有非無。便樂滅心。離有無相。執滅定等。為勝果等。經隨執行。名為非相。論約執心所求之果。名為無想定邪取。此依人境。或合為五故。無著論名五邪取。若依行相。乃有八種。故天親論。開為八執。若以類分。總為二種。所謂我相。法相異故。由依執八。有能離八一。是故經言無我相等。故天親論。總別頌云。

Thus, these marks of a self have four varieties depending on their overall and specific cognitive aspects. If viewed according to the persons capable of generating these [marks], combining the four, they are collectively called the erroneous graspings of non-Buddhists, because they are mostly generated through the false [discriminations] of non-Buddhists. However, the marks of dharmas likewise have overall and specific aspects. Overall, all four phrases are called marks of dharmas, because they are all four kinds of slander through delusion regarding the truth. Specifically, they refer to the four kinds of non-grasping of being, differing in the four distinctions of dharma, non-dharma, and so on. First is the mark of dharmas, which refers to all śrāvakas and ordinary worldlings within the internal teachings of the Mahāyāna; because they abide in a low stage and do not comprehend the emptiness of dharmas, they grasp the substantial essence of marks of real dharmas consisting of the two graspers (subject and object). This is the slander of superimposition. The sūtra, following the mark that is grasped, names it the mark of dharmas; the commentary, based on the person giving rise to the grasping, names it the erroneous grasping of śrāvakas and those within the internal teachings. Second is the mark of non-dharma, which refers to bodhisattvas of excessive pride: hearing of the emptiness that dispels marks, they reject tathatā and all virtuous qualities as entirely empty and non-existent ultimate principles. This is the slander of deprecation. The sūtra, following the mark they grasp, names it the mark of non-dharma; the commentary, based on the person giving rise to the grasping, names it the erroneous orientation of bodhisattvas of excessive pride. Third is the mark [itself], which refers to non-Buddhists and the like: hearing that it is neither existent nor non-existent, they grasp dharmas as both existent and non-existent, possessing contradictory marks. This is the slander of contradiction. Due to this grasping, they are deluded about the truth and destroy the principle, grasping the concentration with ideation as supreme nirvāṇa. The sūtra, following their cognitive activity, names it the mark; the commentary, following the object sought by their grasping mind, also names it the erroneous grasping of the concentration with ideation shared with the mundane world. Fourth is non-mark, which refers to followers of the two vehicles and the like: failing to comprehend that dharmas are neither non-existent nor existent, they grasp dharmas as definitively grasping non-existence and non-being. Since this neither refutes nor reveals, their words become frivolous discourse; this is the slander of frivolous discourse. Having grasped dharmas as neither existent nor non-existent, they delight in the mind of cessation, leaving behind the marks of existence and non-existence, and grasp the concentration of cessation and the like as the supreme fruit. The sūtra, following their cognitive activity, names it non-mark; the commentary, in terms of the fruit sought by their grasping mind, names it the erroneous grasping of the concentration without ideation. These, based on person and object, are sometimes combined into five; hence Asaṅga's commentary calls them the five erroneous graspings. If based on their cognitive aspects, there are eight kinds; hence Vasubandhu's commentary expands them into eight graspings. If classified by category, they are broadly two kinds, namely the mark of a self and the mark of dharmas, because they are distinct. Because by relying on the eight graspings there is that which can abandon the eight as one, the sūtra therefore says 'no mark of a self,' and so on. Therefore, Vasubandhu's commentary states in a verse on the overall and specific [aspects]: