瑜伽師地論略纂 13.32

13.32

論文「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，此文為前文由有阿賴耶故，末那得有文勢故起。又如〈本地分〉中同時依止意，彼末那相依起過行相，今此明之。由有末那故，第六起相縛。謂由末那計第八為我故，第六於境起法執，執蘊等，緣境起縛，名為相縛。相縛體即六塵，所緣皆緣也。又由有此末那故，八識緣境皆有縛起，即諸論云謂境界相能生縛也。此緣，為由法執末那故起，為由人執故起？若法執者，二乘及大乘人空觀應是有漏，必待所依法執故。今准知有人執末那故，第六識等起縛。何以如此者？此人執是惑性，體麁故，起他識相縛。法執不然，故不為例。此皆以自識所行境相望為縛，又他境為縛。由末那所緣順能依第六識故，所以起縛；若緣無漏，第七不順故，不為緣縛。自他境文以意解縛，故剩解非他於自境起縛，亦緣他境起縛。又如〈本地〉中云：意識業者，了自境所緣及自共相。不解他自者，何故今簡也？

The treatise text says: "Furthermore, the mental consciousness takes the defiled manas as its support. When that has not ceased, it cannot be liberated from the bondage of perceptual recognition of signs..." and so forth. This text arises due to the contextual force of the previous passage stating that because the ālaya exists, manas is able to exist. Moreover, as in the simultaneous support mind in the "Maulī Bhūmi", the manner of fault-arising based on that manas is now clarified here. Because of the existence of manas, the sixth [consciousness] produces sign-bondage. That is to say, because manas takes the eighth as self, the sixth produces dharma grasping with respect to objects, clinging to the aggregates and so forth, and grasping objects produces bondage, which is called sign-bondage. The essence of sign-bondage is precisely the six sense-objects; whatever is taken as object is what conditions it. Furthermore, because of the existence of this manas, the eight consciousnesses all produce bondage when taking objects, which is what the various treatises refer to when stating that the signs of sense-objects are able to generate bondage. Does this conditioning arise through manas with dharma grasping, or does it arise through personal grasping? If through dharma grasping, then the contemplation of personal emptiness in the two vehicles and the Great Vehicle would have to be contaminated, because it would necessarily depend on dharma grasping as its support. Now, in accordance with this, know that because of manas with personal grasping, the sixth consciousness and so forth produce bondage. Why is it like this? This personal grasping is by nature an affliction and its essence is coarse, and therefore it produces the sign-bondage of other consciousnesses. Dharma grasping is not like this, and therefore does not serve as an example. These all view the signs of objects experienced by one's own consciousness as bondage, and also other objects as bondage. Because the object of manas conforms to the dependent sixth consciousness, bondage arises; if it takes the uncontaminated as object, the seventh does not conform to it, and therefore it does not become bondage by conditioning. The passage on one's own and others' objects uses manas to explain bondage; thus it redundantly explains not that others produce bondage toward one's own object, but that it also produces bondage by conditioning other objects. Furthermore, as the "Maulī [Bhūmi]" states: "The function of the mental consciousness is to cognize the objects of its own sphere, as well as specific and universal characteristics." If it does not explain others and self, why does it distinguish them now?