大般涅槃經集解 52.22

52.22

案僧宗曰：難前第八心不應解脫。尋初以實法為難，廣設譬明心無縛解也。第二難意貪亦是有，以心本有貪性，則不可得解。第三言見相然後方生者，以此證貪不但在於心中，境中亦有貪也。正以心中有貪、境亦有貪，體性如之，豈可改耶？第四難，言不定也。若於一緣定起貪者，則定以不淨觀除之。今一境，或時生貪、或生瞋癡也；心亦不定，或起於貪、或起瞋癡。是則心之與境二俱不定。既為不定則不可斷，既不可斷則無解脫也。寶亮曰：於未達之流，觸事成執，便謂心本無繫，不應稱為解脫。故德王今者，出四家定性之執，請佛解釋，證耶非而顯正是也。第一家云：六識初造緣，當於心位。然貪瞋用起，要在行陰前；識心之時既未有貪，云何言繫？下便引八事來，證成心無繫義。第二家執言：貪亦是有，明貪瞋乃至解脫悉一時竝有，事如束竹，但用有前後，故不作二種譬來證也。第三家執，從「譬如鑽火」下去，明眾緣中各有少許貪。如五緣生眼識，一一緣中盡有識性用，要聚合共生貪也。第四家執言：心亦不定，貪與解脫為自性，悉不從因緣。

Sengzong states: This challenges the eighth item above, that the mind should not be liberated. Examining the beginning, it uses substantial entities to raise the objection, broadly setting up analogies to explain that the mind has neither bondage nor liberation. The second objection's intent is that craving also exists; since the mind inherently has the nature of craving, it cannot be liberated. The third says that 'it is only generated after seeing marks', using this to prove that craving is not only in the mind, but craving also exists in the object. Precisely because there is craving in the mind and craving in the object, their nature is inherently like this—how could it be altered? The fourth objection says it is indeterminate. If craving definitely arose toward a single object, then one could definitely eliminate it with the contemplation of impurity. Now, toward a single object, one sometimes generates craving, or sometimes generates anger or delusion; the mind is also indeterminate, sometimes arousing craving, or sometimes arousing anger or delusion. Thus both mind and object are indeterminate. Since they are indeterminate they cannot be severed, and since they cannot be severed there is no liberation. Baoliang states: For those who have not yet penetrated, every encounter with phenomena becomes an attachment; thus they say the mind is inherently free from bondage and should not be called liberated. Therefore, Virtue King now presents the fixed-nature attachments of four schools, requesting the Buddha to explain them, refuting the false and revealing the true. The first school says: When the six consciousnesses initially contact conditions, they occupy the position of mind. However, the arising of the functions of craving and anger must occur before the aggregate of volitional formations; since at the moment of the conscious mind there is not yet craving, how can one speak of bondage? Below, it then adduces eight matters to prove and establish the meaning of the mind having no bondage. The second school grasps the idea that craving also exists, explaining that craving, anger, and even liberation all exist simultaneously, like a bundle of bamboo, but their functioning occurs in sequence, which is why it does not make two kinds of analogies to prove it. The third school grasps from 'like drilling for fire' onward, explaining that among the various conditions, each has a little craving. Just as five conditions generate visual consciousness, and within each single condition there is the nature and function of consciousness, they must assemble together to co-produce craving. The fourth school grasps that the mind is also indeterminate, craving and liberation being inherent natures, neither arising from causes and conditions.