俱舍論疏 21.30

21.30

「論曰至作此定說」，釋也。繫縛有情名之為縛。何緣唯說此三為縛？由三受故。約自相續，有相應、所緣隨增；若他相續，唯所緣也。《正理論》云「以能繫縛故立縛名，即是能遮趣離染義。結、縛二相雖無差別，而依本母說縛有三：一者貪縛、二者嗔縛、三者癡縛。所餘諸結品類同故，攝在三中。謂五見、疑同癡品類，慢、慳二結貪品類同，嫉結同嗔，皆三結攝。又為顯示已見諦者餘所應作，故說三縛。通縛六識身，置生死獄故。又佛偏為覺慧劣者，顯麁相煩惱，故但說三縛。有餘師說：由隨三受勢力所引，說縛有三。謂貪多分於自樂受，所緣、相應二種隨增；少分亦於不苦不樂；於自他苦及他樂捨，唯有一種所緣隨增。嗔亦多分於自苦受，所緣，相應二種隨增；少分亦於不苦不樂；於自他樂及他苦捨，唯有一種所緣隨增。癡亦多分於自捨受，所緣、相應二種隨增；少分亦於樂受、苦受；於他一切受唯所緣增。是故世尊依多分理，說隨三受建立三縛。何類貪等遮趣離染說名為縛？謂唯現行。若異此者皆成三故，則應畢竟遮趣離染。」後釋同《俱舍》，前釋三縛通一切煩惱等。偏說三者，是餘染法之本母故，說三亦攝餘也。

On the text from "The Śāstra says" to "makes this definitive statement": this explains it. That which ties and binds sentient beings is called a bond. For what reason are only these three stated to be bonds? On account of the three feelings. In terms of one's own mental continuum, there is increase [of defilement] through association and through cognitive objects; in terms of another's continuum, it is solely through cognitive objects. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Because they can tie and bind, the name 'bond' is established; this is precisely the meaning of being able to obstruct the departure toward dispassion. Although the characteristics of fetters and bonds have no difference, relying on the mātṛkā the bonds are said to be three: first, the bond of attachment; second, the bond of aversion; third, the bond of delusion. Because the other fetters are of identical categories, they are subsumed within these three. That is, the five views and doubt are of the category of delusion; the two fetters of conceit and stinginess are of the category of attachment; the fetter of envy is identical to aversion; all are subsumed in the three fetters. Furthermore, in order to show what remains to be done by those who have already seen the truths, the three bonds are spoken of. This is because they generally bind the six consciousness-bodies, placing them in the prison of saṃsāra. Furthermore, specifically for those of inferior intellect, the Buddha revealed the coarse characteristics of affliction; therefore he spoke only of the three bonds. Other masters say: induced by the force of conforming to the three feelings, the bonds are said to be three. That is, attachment for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own pleasant feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding neutral feeling; regarding one's own and others' painful feeling and others' pleasant and neutral feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through one kind, namely cognitive objects. Aversion also for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own painful feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding neutral feeling; regarding one's own and others' pleasant feeling and others' painful and neutral feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through one kind, namely cognitive objects. Delusion also for the most part increases [defilement] through both cognitive objects and association regarding one's own neutral feeling; to a lesser extent, it also does so regarding pleasant feeling and painful feeling; regarding all of others' feelings, it increases [defilement] solely through cognitive objects. Therefore, the World-Honoured One, relying on the principle of the majority, taught the establishment of the three bonds conforming to the three feelings. What kind of attachment and so forth, obstructing the departure toward dispassion, are called bonds? Namely, only active manifestations. If it were otherwise, since all would possess the three, they would definitively obstruct the departure toward dispassion." The latter explanation agrees with the *Abhidharmakośa*, while the former explanation holds that the three bonds pervade all afflictions and so forth. Specifically speaking of three is because they are the mātṛkā of the remaining defiled dharmas; speaking of three also subsumes the rest.