大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 70.38

70.38

疏「三俱生」下，先總釋、後「初三句」下別釋三段。就此三中，初句既總，即能所縛，即二為能縛，三即所縛妄心。今初，論自釋隨所縛，云「迭共同事、迭共相依，不相離故。」今疏取意，開展釋之，以論同事，釋經俱生。言「生即是事」者，然有二義：一夫言俱生，必有二物。煩惱是一，與何物俱？即妄心事同時生也。二生即生雜染，則煩惱與生事俱也。從「然離惑」下，以論「相依」釋經「不捨」。疏「二眠起一義」者，別明能縛。如世縛賊，為用繩耶為用鎖等，云以何縛。從「謂使為能縛」下，出能縛體。從「現行由使」下，釋其縛義。煩惱縛心，使縛煩惱，如毛繩縛人，由入水故，令繩縛急。然「下辨使」等者，通相濫妨。此中使同下使，故答意云：此約使為惑因，後正顯使，故不濫也。遠公云：「使有二義：一繫縛義，通性及起。二隨逐義，局在性成。今約繫縛。」亦是一理。而下隨眠亦有繫縛，故但依疏。疏「三與心相應」下，即別舉所縛。然雖別顯能縛所縛，而必互有，如繩縛人。若言以何物縛，是單說能，而必有所縛之人。不爾者，何得縛名？如說何人被縛，必有能縛之物。故下二句各兼能所，而二正取能、三正取所，思之。疏「事即真心」者，出所縛體，即自性清淨心。「若被」下，即被縛相。因無明風動，不守自性，成其染心也。染而不染，云心性淨。言「示可解脫」者，若定是染則不可脫，故《中論》云「集若有定性，先來所未斷，於今云何斷？」

Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The third, innate' downwards: first generally explaining, and afterwards, from 'the first three lines' downwards, specifically explaining the three sections. Within these three, since the first line is general, it is both that which binds and that which is bound; that is, the second is that which binds, and the third is the deluded mind that is bound. Now for the first: the treatise itself explains that which is bound, saying, 'Mutually sharing the same matter, mutually relying on one another, because they are not separated.' Now the commentary takes the intended meaning and expands its explanation, using the treatise's 'sharing the same matter' to explain the sūtra's 'innate'. Saying 'arising is precisely matter' has two meanings: first, wherever 'innate' is spoken of, there must be two entities. Affliction is one; with what entity is it innate? It arises simultaneously with the matter of the deluded mind. Second, arising is the arising of defilement; then affliction is co-present with the matter of arising. From 'However, separate from delusion' downwards: using the treatise's 'mutually relying' to explain the sūtra's 'not abandoning'. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The second, dormancy and activation sharing one meaning': specifically clarifying that which binds. Just as in the world when binding a thief, whether using rope or chains, one asks what binds him. From 'meaning the underlying tendencies (anuśaya) are that which binds' downwards: bringing out the essence of that which binds. From 'the active manifestations are due to the underlying tendencies' downwards: explaining the meaning of its binding. Afflictions bind the mind, and the underlying tendencies bind afflictions, just as when a hemp rope binds a person, by being put into water the rope is made to bind tightly. However, regarding 'Below distinguishing the underlying tendencies' and so forth: resolving the objection of mutual confusion. The underlying tendencies here are the same as those below, so the intent of the reply is: this is from the perspective of underlying tendencies being the cause of delusion, whereas below directly reveals the underlying tendencies; thus they are not confused. Master Yuan says: 'Underlying tendencies have two meanings: first, the meaning of binding, which applies to both nature and activation; second, the meaning of pursuing, which is restricted to being established in nature. Here it is from the perspective of binding.' This is also a plausible principle. However, the anuśaya below also has [the meaning of] binding, so one should simply rely on the commentary. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'The third, concomitant with the mind' downwards: this specifically cites that which is bound. However, although specifically revealing that which binds and that which is bound, they necessarily entail each other, like a rope binding a person. If one speaks of what entity binds, that is speaking solely of that which binds, but there must be the person who is bound. If not, how could it receive the name of binding? Just as saying what person is bound, there must be an entity that binds. Therefore, the subsequent two lines each combine that which binds and that which is bound, with the second primarily taking that which binds, and the third primarily taking that which is bound; reflect on this. Regarding the commentary's statement, 'Matter is precisely the true mind': bringing out the essence of that which is bound, which is the intrinsically pure mind. From 'If bound' downwards: the characteristic of being bound. Moved by the wind of avidyā, not maintaining its own nature, it forms the defiled mind. Defiled yet undefiled, it is called the purity of the mind's nature. Regarding the phrase 'showing that it can be liberated': if it were definitively defiled, it could not be liberated; therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: 'If origination had a fixed nature, / Having not been severed previously, / How could it be severed now?'