瑜伽論記 13.195

13.195

又復意識，染污末那以為依止，彼未滅時，相了別縛不得解脫等者，景云：末那執人法體，名為相縛，意識依彼末那相縛不得清淨，名末那大縛。下文即據意識相見，辨於二縛。彼云：自身外為相縛所縛，內為無量縛所縛者，近取相縛即是相分，執其實相名為相縛，無量縛者即是見分，由帶煩惱不調柔性，凡所對緣不能安隱，名無量縛。末那滅已，意識於境知空無我，則於相縛而得解脫。設更有文與此相違，應依此中道理會釋。

Regarding 'Furthermore, the mental consciousness relies upon the defiled manas as its support; when that is not yet extinguished, it is bound by the discernments of marks and cannot attain liberation, etc.': Jing says: Manas's grasping at the substance of persons and phenomena is called the bondage of marks (nimitta-bandhana); the mental consciousness relying upon that bondage of marks of manas cannot attain purity, which is called the great bondage of manas. The subsequent text distinguishes the two bondages based on the image and seeing [portions] of the mental consciousness. It says: 'Externally, one's own body is bound by the bondage of marks; internally, it is bound by immeasurable bondages.' Closely taken, the bondage of marks is precisely the image portion; grasping at its real characteristics is called the bondage of marks. Immeasurable bondages are precisely the seeing portion; because it carries the non-pliable nature of defilements, wherever it confronts an object, it cannot be at peace, which is called immeasurable bondages. When manas has ceased, the mental consciousness knows the objects to be empty and devoid of self, and is then liberated from the bondage of marks. If there should be further texts that conflict with this, one should reconcile and explain them based on the reasoning here.