中觀論疏 7.38

7.38

此一品生有遠近通別。所言遠者，小乘大乘外道內道並言有縛有解。外道有二：一者云眾生縛解自然而有，無有因緣，一切眾生經八萬劫生死則盡，便得解脫，如縛縷丸於高山，縷盡則止，故不須修道斷縛得解。又有外道云：要修道斷惑方得解脫，如僧佉云知二十五諦即得解脫，不知是者不離生死。毘曇人云：有子果二縛，果謂果報身，子縛名煩惱。煩惱有二：一者緣縛、二相應縛。今括其大格，凡有四句：一緣而不縛，謂無漏緣使及九上緣使。二縛而不緣，謂相應縛也。煩惱與心法俱起，是故縛之。既是同時，不得相緣，故《雜心》云「不自緣不緣」，相應不緣，共有也。三亦緣亦縛，即有漏緣使。四非緣非縛，除上諸句。成實義云：無有二縛，以無同時心數，故無相應縛。煩惱緣境亦不縛境，故無緣縛。破數人云：貪心緣壁遂縛壁者，以識識壁，壁應有識。但立煩惱迷境障智，縛於眾生，稱之為縛。大乘人云：二種生死名為果縛，五住煩惱名為子縛。北土諸大乘師亦立斯義。復有二障之說：四住煩惱名煩惱障，即二乘所斷；若無明住地名為智障，菩薩除之。所言解者，毘曇之人見有得道，以有解斷惑。成實之人見空成聖，空解斷惑。大乘斷惑，亦同成論用空解斷。問：毘曇何故明凡夫斷惑，成實辨凡夫不斷但明伏耶？答：以毘曇見有得道，外道亦見有，是故斷惑。成實見空得道，外不見空，故但伏不斷。今求如此內外縛解悉不可得，故名破縛解品。問：何故無此縛解耶？答：外人作縛解義並不成，故求之不得故也。又見有縛解則名為縛，撿縛解無從乃名為解。又內外大小乘乃除於縛，不為縛所縛，猶未除解，而為解所縛，喻如雖脫鐵鎖，猶著金鎖；論主今欲令其具脫縛解二縛，故破縛解也。又內外大小乘人言縛解二，並欲斷縛而修解；今欲令其了縛，即是解知縛解不二，故破縛解。又諸大乘經甚深要觀皆明無縛無解，如《大品》云「無縛無脫為大莊嚴」，《涅槃》云「毘婆舍那不破煩惱」。今欲釋如此等經，故明觀縛解。問：無縛無脫云何為大莊嚴？答：有縛有脫是有見，故不端嚴；今離此諸見，故是妙嚴。又有縛可除為無見、有脫可得是有見，有無是斷常，名為醜陋；離此，即妙觀莊嚴。此品近生者，上明無有無無，外云：凡夫有縛無解、聖人有解無縛，云何言無有無耶？又若起有無見名之為縛，離有無是中道正觀稱之為解，有無之見乃息，縛解之執仍生，故次觀縛解品。

The arising of this single chapter has remote and proximate, general and specific [connections]. As for the remote: both the Hīnayāna and the Mahāyāna, non-Buddhists and Buddhists, all say there is bondage and liberation. The non-Buddhists have two [views]: First, they say that the bondage and liberation of sentient beings exist spontaneously without causes and conditions; when all sentient beings undergo eighty thousand kalpas, saṃsāra is exhausted and they attain liberation, like a ball of thread rolling down a high mountain—when the thread is exhausted it stops, so there is no need to cultivate the Path to sever bondage and attain liberation. There are also non-Buddhists who say: one must cultivate the Path to sever delusions in order to attain liberation, as the Sāṃkhya say that knowing the twenty-five principles brings liberation, and not knowing them means one does not leave saṃsāra. The Abhidharma masters say: there are two bondages, of cause and effect; the effect is the retributive body, and the causal bondage is called afflictions. Afflictions are of two kinds: first, objective bondage; second, associated bondage. Summarizing their general categories now, there are four propositions: 1. Having an object but not binding: the anusayas taking the unconditioned/uncontaminated as object and the nine taking higher realms as object. 2. Binding but not having an object: associated bondage. Afflictions arise together with mental dharmas, and therefore bind them. Since they are simultaneous, they cannot take each other as object; hence the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says, "They do not take themselves as object and do not take [the other as object]"—being associated, they do not take each other as object, for they are co-existent. 3. Both taking an object and binding: anusayas taking contaminated dharmas as object. 4. Neither taking an object nor binding: excluding the above propositions. The doctrine of the *Tattvasiddhi* says: there are no two bondages, because there are no simultaneous mental factors, so there is no associated bondage. When afflictions take an object, they do not bind the object either, so there is no objective bondage. In refuting the Abhidharma masters, it says: if a greedy mind taking a wall as object consequently bound the wall, then because consciousness recognizes the wall, the wall ought to possess consciousness. It merely establishes that afflictions delude regarding the object and obstruct wisdom, binding sentient beings, which is termed bondage. The Mahāyāna masters say: the two kinds of birth and death are called fruit-bondage, and the afflictions of the five entrenchments are called seed-bondage. The various Mahāyāna masters of the Northern territory also establish this doctrine. Furthermore, there is the explanation of the two obscurations: the afflictions of the four entrenchments are called the affliction-obscuration, which is severed by the two vehicles; the entrenchment of ignorance is called the wisdom-obscuration, which is eliminated by bodhisattvas. As for liberation: the Abhidharma masters see existence and attain the Path, severing delusions through the understanding of existence. The *Tattvasiddhi* masters see emptiness and become sages, severing delusions through the understanding of emptiness. The Mahāyāna severing of delusions is also like the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, using the understanding of emptiness to sever them. Question: Why does the Abhidharma explain that ordinary beings sever delusions, whereas the *Tattvasiddhi* explains that ordinary beings do not sever them, but only suppress them? Answer: Because the Abhidharma sees existence to attain the Path, and non-Buddhists also see existence; therefore they sever delusions. The *Tattvasiddhi* sees emptiness to attain the Path, and non-Buddhists do not see emptiness, so they only suppress and do not sever. Now, seeking such internal and external bondage and liberation, they are entirely unobtainable; hence it is titled "Chapter on Refuting Bondage and Liberation." Question: Why is there no such bondage and liberation? Answer: The opponent's formulations of the meaning of bondage and liberation are entirely untenable; hence, seeking them, they cannot be found. Furthermore, seeing bondage and liberation is termed bondage; examining bondage and liberation to find they have no basis is termed liberation. Moreover, internal and external, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, may eliminate bondage and not be bound by bondage, yet they have not eliminated liberation, and are bound by liberation—just as, although one takes off iron chains, one still wears gold chains. The author of the treatise now wishes to make them completely take off both bondages of bondage and liberation; hence he refutes bondage and liberation. Furthermore, internal and external, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna practitioners speak of bondage and liberation as two, both wishing to sever bondage and cultivate liberation; now, wishing to make them realize that bondage is liberation, knowing that bondage and liberation are non-dual, he therefore refutes bondage and liberation. Furthermore, the profound and essential contemplations of the Mahāyāna sūtras all explain that there is neither bondage nor liberation, as the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* says, "Neither bondage nor liberation is the great adornment," and the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says, "Vipaśyanā does not destroy afflictions." Now, wishing to explain such sūtras, he therefore explains the examination of bondage and liberation. Question: Why is "neither bondage nor liberation" the great adornment? Answer: Having bondage and having liberation is a view of existence, and is therefore not dignified and magnificent; now, being free from these views is sublime adornment. Furthermore, having bondage that can be removed is the view of nonexistence, and having liberation that can be attained is the view of existence; existence and nonexistence are annihilation and permanence, and are termed ugly; being free from these is the adornment of sublime contemplation. As for the proximate connection of this chapter: above, it was explained that there is neither existence nor nonexistence; an opponent says: "Ordinary beings have bondage and lack liberation, while sages have liberation and lack bondage—how can you say there is neither existence nor nonexistence?" Furthermore, if giving rise to views of existence and nonexistence is termed bondage, while freedom from existence and nonexistence is the middle way right contemplation termed liberation, then even though the views of existence and nonexistence are pacified, the clinging to bondage and liberation still arises. Therefore, the examination of bondage and liberation follows next.