俱舍論疏 21.7

21.7

The Śāstra says: "Herein, the fetter of craving, up to 'their characteristics should be distinguished'"—this brings out the fetter of craving. As for why these nine kinds are collectively named fetters, the Nyāyānusāra states: "Because they have the power to bind to objects and to rebirths, they are called fetters. Alternatively, because they exist, they join sentient beings to manifold suffering; hence they are called fetters, as they are the footing for manifold suffering and afflictions. Herein, the fetter of craving refers to attachment in the three realms; this is spoken of with respect to the basis and the objective support. Relying on a body of the three realms and taking objects of the three realms as objective support, attachment that is not yet free from the defilement of the three realms is called attachment in the three realms. What is called attachment refers to mental activity characterized by taking pleasure in agreeable signs—that is, delight and attachment arising with respect to realms of existence and the requisites for existence, which is called attachment. For what reason is this attachment called craving? Because this defiled mental factor follows pleasing objects." Regarding "the rest, as appropriate, their characteristics should be distinguished," this refers to the fetter of hostility and so forth. As explained elsewhere, their characteristics should be distinguished. The Nyāyānusāra explains: "Hostility refers to causing the mind to detest and turn away from activities grasped under repulsive notions and the desire for separation. Conceit refers to the seven conceits, as already explained before. The fetter of ignorance refers to non-knowledge in the three realms; this is said in terms of the basis, not the objective support, because unconditioned and untainted dharmas do not fall into the realms, and ignorance also takes them as objective support. This is differentiated in detail as in the 'Conditioned Arising' section. The fetter of view and the fetter of grasping both have the characteristic of false inference; their distinct characteristics are shown extensively as in the five views. In the previous analysis of the view of extreme grasping, it was said: among conditioned outflows grasped as 'mine', grasping at annihilation or permanence is called the view of extreme grasping. Therein, what does the annihilation view signify? It refers to grasping that after death, conditioned factors do not arise in succession. Is this not simply the wrong view that repudiates future existence? Although there is this objection, it is observed in the world that there are things whose modes of activity are the same while their essential natures are distinct, just as benevolence and attachment have distinct essential natures but identical modes of activity. How are their modes of activity identical while their essential natures are distinct? For instance, when initiating an exertion wishing to benefit another, if it belongs to a defiled mind, it arises from attachment; if it arises from benevolence, it belongs to an undefiled mind: this is termed identical modes of activity with distinct essential natures. Likewise, regarding conditioned factors, viewing them as not continuing to arise, if born from wrong means, belongs to the annihilation view; if arising independently of means, this belongs to wrong view. This also constitutes identical modes of activity with distinct essential natures. The means giving rise to these views of annihilation and permanence are as spoken of in the sixty-two views."