大般涅槃經集解 52.22

52.22

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.