法華玄贊義決 1.99

1.99

盡諸有結者，有言，非是九結。相應宗云：九唯欲界現纏，故應取五上下分結。今謂不爾，准八十九云：依九種事能和合故，建立九結：一依在家品可愛有情非有情數一切境界貪愛纏事；二即依可惡一切境界瞋恚纏事；三依自有情數憍慢纏事；若四、五、六依惡說法諸出家品三種邪僻勝解纏事，謂依聽聞不正法故，依不如理邪思惟故，依非方便所攝修故，如是差別即為三三種；七依於善說法律無勝解纏事；八依出家品智貧窮事；九依在家品財貧窮事，如次起九。後二據因，以出家品慳悋法故，當知貧窮智；在家品慳財故當貧窮財。此據多分欲界所生，不說唯言。准《雜集》第六云愛結者，謂三界貪愛結所繫故，慢結者即七慢，無明結者三界無智等，大同有部《中邊論》第一文，亦通說，不言唯欲故。又八十四云：於五種事能和合，故說為結。第五趣向事能生五趣，於諸趣中能和合故，名趣向事。既言諸趣，不簡上二界，明許通三界。三見二取各合為結者，且《俱舍》云：物取等故，即彼三見有十八物，二取亦然，故名物等。三等所取、一等能取，等故名取等，所取能取有差別故。何緣纏中取愱、慳二？答：不善性自在起故。八纏可爾，十纏中忿、覆亦具二義，應言數現行故。又二能為貧賤因故，遍顯勸懺隨煩惱故，惱亂出家在家部故。故准疏解，文為盡理。若取五上下分結者，准八十四云：望色無色，欲界名為下分，望其修道，見道為下分，由約此二下分差別，准此即應五下分結准分別。或無俱生愛不成有結，闕潤生故，違餘文故。此既約多分，九結亦應爾，略舉二三，餘文異解多有乖失，准此可知。

Regarding "having exhausted all fetters of existence": some say they are not the nine fetters (saṃyojana). The Yogācāra school states that the nine are active entanglements of the desire realm only, and so one should take the five lower-part and upper-part fetters. I say this is not so. Based on fascicle eighty-nine, the nine fetters are established because they can bind in relation to nine kinds of bases: first, the base of the entanglement of greed and attachment toward all objects, whether animate or inanimate, that are dear to the household class; second, the base of the entanglement of ill will toward all unpleasant objects; third, the base of the entanglement of pride regarding one's own animate category; as for the fourth, fifth, and sixth, they are the bases of the entanglements of three kinds of deviant, biased resolving faith among various renunciant classes adhering to poorly taught doctrines—namely, based on hearing improper teachings, based on improper reflection, and based on practice not subsumed under proper means—such differences constitute the three threefold kinds; seventh, the base of the entanglement of lack of resolving faith toward the well-taught Dharma and Vinaya; eighth, the base of poverty of wisdom in the renunciant class; ninth, the base of poverty of wealth in the household class—the nine arise respectively. The latter two are based on causes: because the renunciant class is stingy with Dharma, know that they suffer poverty of wisdom; because the household class is stingy with wealth, they suffer poverty of wealth. This is stated mostly on the basis of what arises in the desire realm, without the word "only." Based on the sixth fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, it states that the fetter of attachment means being bound by the fetter of craving in the three realms; the fetter of pride means the seven prides; the fetter of ignorance means unknowing in the three realms, etc., broadly agreeing with the Sarvāstivāda; the first text of the Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya also speaks generally, without stating that they are only of desire. Furthermore, fascicle eighty-four states: "Because they can bind in relation to five kinds of bases, they are spoken of as fetters. The fifth is the base of destiny, which can generate the five destinies; because it can bind within all destinies, it is called the base of destiny." Since it says "all destinies" without excluding the upper two realms, it clearly allows them to pervade all three realms. As for the three views and the two attachments being combined respectively into fetters: the Kośa states that because the entities and attachments are equal—namely, those three views have eighteen entities, and the two attachments likewise, hence called "equal in entities"; three are equal in what is grasped, one is equal in grasping, and because they are equal, they are called "equal in attachment," because there is a distinction between the grasped and the grasper. For what reason, among the entanglements, are jealousy and stinginess taken? Answer: because they are unwholesome by nature and arise autonomously. For the eight entanglements this may be so, but among the ten entanglements, anger and concealment also possess both meanings; one should say it is because they are frequently active. Furthermore, because these two are the causes of poverty and lowliness, and universally reveal and encourage the confession of secondary afflictions, and perturb both the monastic and lay divisions. Therefore, according to the explanation in the commentary, the text accords fully with principle. If one were to take the five lower-part and upper-part fetters, based on fascicle eighty-four, in contrast to form and formlessness, the desire realm is called the lower part; in contrast to the bhāvanā-mārga, the darśana-mārga is the lower part; due to distinguishing these two lower parts, accordingly the five lower-part fetters should be understood as conceptualized. Or, without innate attachment, the fetters of existence would not be constituted, lacking the moisture for rebirth, which would contradict other texts. Since this is based on the majority, the nine fetters should also be so; having briefly cited two or three, different explanations in other texts mostly contain errors, which can be known from this.