[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大般涅槃經集解](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763) › 57.4 # 大般涅槃經集解 57.4 大般涅槃經集解 57.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [57.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57.4) 案僧亮曰：第三門，辯縛解也。若如上說，因果之觀必從縛得脫也。僧宗曰：此下復有四段，探其義並從中道而來也。前中道論義，初以五句執有、後以七句執無。佛釋云：不可一向定有、不可一向定無。今此下猶欲成其前執也。以縛解修道二問，成前有執；轉障勸修，成前無執也。所以知縛解成其有執，謂若因中有佛性，為惑所纏，故稱為縛。從因至果得脫，故稱為解。若因時無性，後方有因，本無故則無有縛。果時自起，生在累外，復無所解也。以此二因者，正因即神明，緣因即萬善，此自是有為，居在於縛，乃至金剛亦未免於惑。是則金剛為累生在於前，佛心無累起在於後，豈有從縛至解耶？寶亮曰：大文第三，明縛解之相也。若於向者觀因觀果信心得立，承此修道者，則名為解。若於此因果六行之中信心不立，則名為縛。今將明此理，故先作難。若如佛所說，應無縛解。何以然耶？我先言正因中有佛，故須緣了出；而佛言正因之內都無有果。然則有縛之時舉體無縛，及其解時亦未曾有縛，云何而言從縛得解？下引事如五陰遷流、念念生滅，法相如此，誰縛誰解？就此文中凡有五段：第一明行人於三世中陰陰相傳；第二出起縛之體相；第三辯解體之方法；第四明縛解不相離；第五論子果縛異。智秀曰：上明中道，雖復理相顯然，但學者根殊，曉則成解、迷則致縛。為獎學者，使順縛而就解，此下第三次辯縛解明義。凡有五翻：第一約不異段；第二明業盡果謝，理不可移；第三訖燈生闇滅，明果謝之後，後果必來續也；第四蠟印譬，明陰所以續，由果因之理。必相開故也；第五炎，明中陰果報相從也。 > Sengliang states: The third section discerns bondage and liberation. If it is as stated above, the contemplation of cause and fruit must achieve release from bondage. Sengzong states: Below this there are another four passages, all of whose underlying meanings derive from the Middle Way. In the previous discussion of the Middle Way, first five phrases clung to existence, and later seven phrases clung to non-existence. The Buddha explained: it cannot be determinately existent in one way, nor can it be determinately non-existent in one way. Now, below this, he still wishes to establish his previous clinging. With the two questions on bondage and liberation and cultivating the path, he establishes the previous clinging to existence; by transforming hindrances and encouraging cultivation, he establishes the previous clinging to non-existence. The reason we know bondage and liberation establish his clinging to existence is that if the buddhadhātu exists in the cause and is entangled by delusions, it is called bondage. Going from cause to fruit and attaining release, it is called liberation. If during the cause there is no nature, and only later is there a cause, then since it originally did not exist, there is no bondage. At the time of the fruit it arises of itself, born beyond defilements, and again there is nothing to liberate. As for 'these two causes': the direct cause is the spiritual consciousness, and the contributory cause is the ten thousand goods; these are themselves conditioned and reside in bondage, and even at the vajra\[-stage\] one is still not free from delusion. Thus, the vajra\[-stage\] constitutes defilement and is born beforehand, while the Buddha-mind is without defilement and arises afterwards; how could there be a progression from bondage to liberation? Baoliang states: The third major text clarifies the characteristics of bondage and liberation. If one's faith is established regarding the contemplation of cause and fruit mentioned above, and relying on this one cultivates the path, that is named liberation. If one's faith is not established within these six practices of cause and fruit, that is named bondage. Now, wishing to clarify this principle, he first raises an objection: if it is as the Buddha has taught, there should be neither bondage nor liberation. Why is this? Previously I said that the Buddha exists within the direct cause, so it requires contributory conditions to reveal it; yet the Buddha says that within the direct cause there is no fruit whatsoever. If so, at the time of bondage, the entire entity is without bondage; and when it comes to liberation, there was never any bondage either. Why then speak of attaining liberation from bondage? Below he cites facts such as the flux of the five aggregates, arising and ceasing moment by moment; when the characteristics of phenomena are like this, who is bound and who is liberated? In this text there are five passages in all: first, clarifying the practitioner's transmission from aggregate to aggregate throughout the three periods of time; second, setting forth the substantial characteristics of the arising of bondage; third, discerning the method of the substance of liberation; fourth, clarifying that bondage and liberation are not separate; fifth, discussing the difference between the bondage of defilement seeds and the bondage of karmic fruit. Zhixiu states: The Middle Way was explained above; although the characteristics of the principle are evident, practitioners' capacities differ: understanding results in liberation, whereas delusion brings about bondage. To encourage practitioners to turn from bondage toward liberation, below this is the third \[part\], discerning the meaning of bondage and liberation. There are five turns in all: first, the passage on non-difference; second, clarifying that when karma is exhausted the fruit ceases, a principle that cannot be altered; third, concluding with the birth of the lamp and the destruction of darkness, clarifying that after the fruit ceases, a subsequent fruit is bound to follow in succession; fourth, the simile of the wax seal, clarifying that the reason the aggregates continue is due to the principle of cause and fruit necessarily making way for one another; fifth, flame, clarifying the correspondence of the intermediate existence with karmic retribution. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 57.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57.3) - [Next: 57.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57.5) - [Up: 57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763~en-mt.57.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1763.57.4) · Pramāṇa