大般涅槃經集解 52.36

52.36

案僧亮曰：上三難求法定相；求定皆無，善其能解也。僧宗曰：答第一難也。亦不為貪之所繫者，實法則無繫也。亦非不繫者，假名道有繫也；解脫非解脫亦如是也。非有非無者，實法當分自滅，故非有移時不滅；以其相續而言非無，終一法也。非過去者，非過去獨有縛解，乃至見伏，未來亦爾。言假名相續，經移三世，得言本縛今解也。正以如假實之旨，則初難釋也。寶亮曰：將欲非其所執，故先略解正義，然後破其執心也。亦不為貪結繫者，前識心未起貪，故言不繫。亦非不繫者，此語有二種：一實錄中辯繫、二假名相續中明繫。如先起一念貪，自未有治道來翻，得言心常被繫縛，此是實錄繫也。若相續道，語用後來，繫前乃行，心方起貪。要後心起貪，染累於前，亦非不繫也。非是解脫者，道心起時，無惑可斷，故非解脫也。本癡而今解，亦非不解脫也。若因緣未會，故言非有；緣會便起，故言非無也。非三世者，明三世中當體即滅，過去已無、未來未起、現在不停，云何有貪！何以故？法無自性也。

Sengliang states: The preceding three objections sought a determinate characteristic of phenomena; seeking determinacy, all are found to be non-existent, so [the text] praises one's ability to understand this. Sengzong says: This answers the first objection. 'Neither bound by greed': in actual phenomena there is no bondage. 'Nor unbound': in terms of conventional designations there is bondage; liberation and non-liberation are likewise so. 'Neither existent nor non-existent': actual phenomena spontaneously cease in their own moment, hence they are not existent as something enduring through time without cessation; yet spoken of in terms of their continuity they are not non-existent, for they form a single phenomenon from start to finish. 'Not past': it is not that bondage and liberation, down to being seen and subdued, exist exclusively in the past; the future is likewise so. Speaking of conventional continuity extending across the three periods of time, one may say that there is original bondage and present liberation. Precisely by aligning with the principle of conventional and real, the first objection is resolved. Baoliang says: Intending to refute what they grasp, he first briefly explains the correct principle and afterwards refutes their grasping minds. 'Neither bound by the fetter of greed': because greed has not yet arisen in the prior conscious mind, it is said to be not bound. 'Nor unbound': these words have two senses: first, explaining bondage within the real account; second, clarifying bondage within conventional continuity. If greed has previously arisen in a single thought-moment and the antidote has not yet arrived to overturn it, one may say that the mind is constantly bound; this is bondage in the real account. If spoken in terms of the continuum, its function is engaged only when the subsequent arrives and binds the prior, whereupon greed arises in the mind. It requires the subsequent mind to give rise to greed and defile the prior, hence it is also not unbound. 'Nor is it liberated': when the mind of the path arises, there are no delusions to be severed, hence it is not liberated. Having originally been deluded and now being enlightened, it is also not unliberated. If causes and conditions have not yet converged, it is said to be not existent; when conditions converge and it immediately arises, it is said to be not non-existent. 'Not of the three times': this clarifies that within the three times their very substance immediately ceases—the past is already gone, the future has not yet arisen, and the present does not abide; how could there be greed? Why is this? Because phenomena have no self-nature.