大般涅槃經義記 8.314

8.314

上來明縛，下次明解。初法、次喻、後合、下結。法中，初明親近善人，「便得聞」下聽聞正法，「以聞法」下明繫念思，「得大慧」下明如說行。行有八句，喻、合及結文皆可知。第二對中，師子初先舉無我人難無縛解。「空中無刺，云何言拔」難無解也。「陰無繫者，云何繫縛」難無縛也。下佛答之，明有煩惱繫縛五陰，名色縛生所以有縛，離此名解。文中，先明煩惱繫陰、離之名解，後彰名色繫縛眾生、離之名解。前中初法，法中明縛，略不論解。煩惱縛法攬之成陰名「縛五陰」，惱陰同體故言「無別」。下約喻縛解雙論，兩喻兩合文顯可知。下次明其名色縛生、離之名解。「如說名色繫縛眾生」明其有縛。名色猶是向前五陰，攬之成人名縛眾生。「名色若滅則無眾生」彰其有解。「離名色已無別眾生，離眾生已無別名色」約就前解明人與法同體無別。以同體故，但離名色則無眾生，但離眾生亦無名色。「亦名名色繫縛生」等，約就前縛明人與法同體無別，以同體故但有名色則縛眾生，但有眾生亦縛名色。第三對中，師子初先執人異法，難破向前名色縛生、生縛名色。初言「如眼不自見」等，自立道理。「云何如來說言名色繫縛名色」難破佛義。「何以故」下釋顯難意。先自徵責，如來上來未曾宣說名色還復繫縛名色，我以何故為此難問。下對釋之。如來向前宣說名色即是眾生，復言眾生即是名色，以是義故，若言名色繫縛眾生，即是名色繫縛名色。

The preceding section explained bondage; next is an explanation of liberation. First in terms of dharma, next with an analogy, then the application, and finally the conclusion. Within [the section on] dharma: first, approaching a good person is explained; from "whereupon one hears" onward, hearing the true Dharma is explained; from "by hearing the Dharma" onward, bound mindfulness and contemplation are explained; from "attains great wisdom" onward, practicing according to what was taught is explained. The practice has eight clauses; the analogy, application, and concluding text are all clear and understandable. In the second pair [of exchanges], Siṃhanāda first brings up the absence of self and person to object to the absence of bondage and liberation. "When there are no thorns in the sky, how can one speak of pulling them out?" objects to there being no liberation. "If the aggregates have no binding, how can there be bondage?" objects to there being no bondage. Below, the Buddha answers him, explaining that there are afflictions that bind the five aggregates, and that name-and-form binds living beings, which is why bondage exists, and that departure from these is called liberation. In the text, he first explains that afflictions bind the aggregates and that departure from them is called liberation, and afterward shows that name-and-form binds sentient beings and that departure from it is called liberation. In the first part, initially there is the dharma; within the dharma, bondage is explained, while liberation is omitted from discussion. Afflictions bind dharmas, and by gathering them together the aggregates are formed, which is called "binding the five aggregates"; because afflictions and the aggregates share the same substance, it is said that they are "not distinct." Below, bondage and liberation are discussed together with reference to analogies; the two analogies and two applications are evident and understandable. Next is explained that name-and-form binds sentient beings, and departure from it is called liberation. "As it is said that name-and-form binds sentient beings" explains that there is bondage. Name-and-form is still the preceding five aggregates; gathering them together forms a person, which is called binding sentient beings. "If name-and-form is extinguished, then there are no sentient beings" reveals that there is liberation. "Apart from name-and-form there are no separate sentient beings, and apart from sentient beings there is no separate name-and-form" explains, with respect to the preceding liberation, that person and dharma share the same substance without distinction. Because they share the same substance, merely departing from name-and-form leaves no sentient beings, and merely departing from sentient beings leaves no name-and-form. "It is also called name-and-form binding sentient beings," and so forth, explains, with respect to the preceding bondage, that person and dharma share the same substance without distinction; because they share the same substance, if there is merely name-and-form, it binds sentient beings, and if there are merely sentient beings, they also bind name-and-form. In the third pair [of exchanges], Siṃhanāda first clings to the notion that the person is distinct from dharmas, objecting to and refuting the earlier statement that name-and-form binds sentient beings and sentient beings bind name-and-form. First, saying "just as the eye does not see itself" and so forth, he sets up his own principle. "How can the Tathāgata say that name-and-form binds name-and-form?" objects to and refutes the Buddha's meaning. From "why is this?" onward, he explains and reveals the intent of his objection. First he questions himself: the Tathāgata above has never proclaimed that name-and-form turns around and binds name-and-form; for what reason do I pose this difficult question? Below, he answers and explains it: the Tathāgata previously proclaimed that name-and-form is identical with sentient beings, and also said that sentient beings are identical with name-and-form; on account of this meaning, if one says that name-and-form binds sentient beings, that is just name-and-form binding name-and-form.