成唯識論述記 9.514

9.514

述曰：相縛者，謂相分縛見分等也。如前第五卷證第七識有中說，謂一切有漏善、無記、不善等心，皆有分別相分，此相能縛於心；非謂相縛即是執也。有義：八識皆有執故，相縛於見通於八識。有義：不然，有漏八識有分別故，分別之相縛於見分名為相縛，非要有執。若不執之相亦名能縛者，後得智品相分應亦能縛。答曰：不然。彼後得智斷漏方得，體非硬澁，非漏所增相分，非分別境。後得見分緣一切相皆為證解，有漏不然，有分別故，漏相俱故，漏所增故，非斷漏證故，緣一切境非皆證解，或比量故，若善、無覆無記心中唯現、比量，其染污心亦通非量，所以相縛能拘礙見，不令明淨，不令證知，故有別也。一切有漏法能縛見分者，皆名相縛。若爾，自證緣見縛自證耶？有義亦縛，有漏類故。有義彼非，不同見分緣於相故，彼外取故，通諸量故，此自證分緣見分時非外取故，唯是現量作證相故。若爾，第八識等現量心相分，應非相縛體，由此見分亦縛自證，分別類故，不明淨故，見分漏心增自證故。有漏相貌縛能觀心名為相縛，非謂相者是相分也。經說所取、能取纏者，即是四分互相縛義。不爾，見分便非相縛、自證緣時不名相分故。麁重縛者，即一切有漏法。《大論》五十八說：麁重有二：一、漏；二、有漏。漏者，阿羅漢修道煩惱斷時皆悉遠離此，謂有隨眠者，有識身中不安隱性，無堪能性有漏麁重者。隨眠斷時，從漏所生，漏所熏發本所得性、不安隱性、苦依附性，與彼相似無堪能性，皆得微薄。《文殊問經》上卷有習氣品二十四種。彼經頌云：阿羅漢習氣，以有過患故，唯佛獨能度，為眾生歸依。五十八又云：此有漏麁重名煩惱習，二乘所未能斷，唯有如來能究竟斷，是故說彼名永斷習氣，是不共佛法。《大論》第二說：自識中所有有漏種子，若煩惱品所攝名麁重，亦名隨眠。若異熟品及餘無記品所攝，唯名麁重，不名隨眠；若信等善法所攝種子，不名麁重，亦非隨眠，由此法生時，所依自體唯有堪能，非不堪能，麁重所隨所生自性，故佛說為行苦。《對法》第十說二十四麁重，所知障麁重異熟品攝，異熟麁重亦異熟品攝，領受麁重攝一切有漏受，即善受亦在中。勞倦麁重即威儀無記，餘無記亦攝。如此等文相違非一，然會此者，如《別抄》說。准五十八文麁重縛即一切有漏法，漏與有漏皆麁重故，由相縛未斷有分別相，故其無堪任麁重縛亦未能斷。《顯揚》十六說：由相、麁重二縛執二自性，謂執依他及計所執。若解二縛於二自性，正無所得及無所見，彼論唯約執心解縛，其非執心，彼即不說，據增者故。彼卷又云：此依他起性以相及麁重縛為體，云何說為依他？由此二種更互為緣而得生故，謂相為緣起麁重，麁重為緣生相縛，相縛即約現行相，麁重約種子語，論時彼體雖復皆同，為緣互得。然今此文以相為現行，麁重為種，有漏相未遣，二障種不除。不爾，如何此中言相未滅麁重不斷？前說相縛是執二性，應細勘彼諸文相違。此中言相縛者，一切有漏相；麁重縛者，一切有漏不安隱性，與《瑜伽》第五十八有漏麁重同。初地分得，第八地中第六識全得一向不起，第七分無，五、八全有。麁重隨應，佛地全無。《顯揚》十九說，相縛縛眾生，亦由麁重縛，善雙修止、觀，方乃俱解脫。此當彼解。

The Commentary states: "Bondage by marks" means the nimittabhāga binds the darśanabhāga and so forth. As stated in fascicle five previously, in proving the existence of the seventh consciousness: all sāsrava wholesome, indeterminate, and unwholesome minds have conceptualized nimittabhāgas, and these marks can bind the mind; it does not mean that the bondage by marks is itself attachment. One opinion says: Because all eight consciousnesses have attachment, bondage by marks binding the darśanabhāga applies across all eight consciousnesses. Another opinion says: This is not so; because the eight sāsrava consciousnesses possess conceptual discrimination, the marks of conceptual discrimination bind the darśanabhāga, which is called bondage by marks; it does not necessarily require attachment. If marks without attachment were also called capable of binding, then the nimittabhāga of the class of pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna would also be capable of binding. We answer: Not so. That pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna is obtained only upon severing outflow (āsrava); its substance is not rigid and unyielding; it is not a nimittabhāga augmented by outflow, nor an object of conceptual discrimination. The darśanabhāga of the subsequently obtained [wisdom] cognizes all marks as realization and understanding. Sāsrava is not so; because it has conceptual discrimination, because it is accompanied by marks of outflow, because it is augmented by outflow, and because it is not realization from severing outflow, its cognizing of all objects is not entirely realization and understanding, or else it is inference. In wholesome and unobstructed-indeterminate minds, there are only direct perception and inference, while the defiled mind also extends to non-valid cognition. Therefore, the bondage by marks can obstruct the darśanabhāga, preventing it from being clear and pure, and preventing it from realizing and knowing; thus there is a difference. All sāsrava phenomena that can bind the darśanabhāga are called bondage by marks. If so, does the svasaṃvittibhāga cognizing the darśanabhāga bind the svasaṃvittibhāga? One opinion says it also binds, because it belongs to the class of sāsrava. Another opinion says it does not; it is not like the darśanabhāga cognizing the nimittabhāga, because that grasps externally and extends across all pramāṇas, whereas when this svasaṃvittibhāga cognizes the darśanabhāga, it does not grasp externally, but acts exclusively as a mark of realization through direct perception. If so, the nimittabhāga of minds of direct perception, such as the eighth consciousness, should not be the substance of bondage by marks; therefore, the darśanabhāga also binds the svasaṃvittibhāga, because it belongs to the class of conceptual discrimination, because it is not clear and pure, and because the darśanabhāga's mind of outflow augments the svasaṃvittibhāga. Sāsrava appearances binding the observing mind is called bondage by marks; it does not mean that "marks" is exclusively the nimittabhāga. What the sūtra calls the entanglements of the grasped and the grasping [subject] is the meaning of the four bhāgas binding one another. Otherwise, the darśanabhāga would not be bondage by marks, since when cognized by the svasaṃvittibhāga it is not called a nimittabhāga. "Bondage by crude heaviness" refers to all sāsrava phenomena. Fascicle fifty-eight of the Great Treatise [Yogācārabhūmi] states: There are two kinds of crude heaviness: first, outflow; second, sāsrava. Outflow: when the defilements of the path of cultivation are severed by an arhat, they are completely removed; this refers to the presence of anuśaya, the state of unease in the conscious body, and the sāsrava crude heaviness of incompetence. When anuśaya is severed, that which is produced from outflow, the original nature obtained from being perfumed by outflow, the state of unease, the nature of being attached to suffering, and the incompetence resembling that, all become attenuated. The first fascicle of the Mañjuśrī-paripṛcchā-sūtra has a chapter on the twenty-four kinds of vāsanā. A verse of that sūtra states: "The vāsanā of an arhat, because it has faults, can only be crossed over by the Buddha alone, the refuge for sentient beings." Fascicle fifty-eight also states: This sāsrava crude heaviness is called defilement habit-energy; the two vehicles cannot yet sever it, and only the Tathāgata can sever it completely; therefore, it is said that he is called the one who perpetually severs habit-energy, which is an exclusive Buddha-dharma. Fascicle two of the Great Treatise states: All sāsrava seeds within one's own consciousness, if subsumed under the category of defilement, are called crude heaviness and are also called anuśaya. If subsumed under the category of vipāka and other indeterminate categories, they are only called crude heaviness, not anuśaya. If they are seeds subsumed under wholesome phenomena such as faith, they are neither called crude heaviness nor anuśaya; because when these phenomena arise, the basis's intrinsic substance is only competent and not incompetent; being the intrinsic nature accompanied by and produced from crude heaviness, the Buddha spoke of it as the suffering of conditioning. Fascicle ten of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā explains twenty-four kinds of crude heaviness: the crude heaviness of the cognitive obstacle is subsumed under the category of vipāka; the crude heaviness of vipāka is also subsumed under the category of vipāka; the crude heaviness of experiencing subsumes all sāsrava feelings, which means wholesome feelings are also included therein; the crude heaviness of weariness refers to bodily-posture indeterminates, and other indeterminates are also subsumed. Contradictions between passages such as these are not singular; however, reconciling them is as explained in the Separate Notes. In accordance with the text of fascicle fifty-eight, bondage by crude heaviness refers to all sāsrava phenomena, because both outflow and sāsrava are crude heaviness. Because bondage by marks is not yet severed and marks of conceptual discrimination exist, that bondage of incompetent crude heaviness also cannot yet be severed. Fascicle sixteen of the Prakaraṇāryavācā states: Due to the two bondages of marks and crude heaviness, one clings to two intrinsic natures—namely, clinging to the dependent and the imaginary. If one unties the two bondages, regarding the two intrinsic natures, there is truly nothing attained and nothing seen. That treatise explains the untying of bondage only in terms of the mind of attachment; for minds that are not attachment, it does not speak of them, being based on what is predominant. That fascicle also says: This paratantra-svabhāva takes the bondages of marks and crude heaviness as its essence. Why is it spoken of as dependent? Because these two serve as mutual conditions to arise; that is, marks serve as the condition to give rise to crude heaviness, and crude heaviness serves as the condition to produce bondage by marks. Bondage by marks is spoken of in terms of actualized marks, and crude heaviness in terms of seeds. At the time of the treatise, though their essences are identical, they function as mutual conditions. But now, this text takes marks as actualization and crude heaviness as seeds: while sāsrava marks are not dispelled, seeds of the two obstacles are not eliminated. Otherwise, how could it be said here that when marks are not extinguished, crude heaviness is not severed? Previously it was said that bondage by marks is clinging to the two natures; one should closely examine these textual contradictions. The "bondage by marks" spoken of here refers to all sāsrava marks; "bondage by crude heaviness" refers to the state of unease of all sāsrava phenomena, identical to the sāsrava crude heaviness in Yogācārabhūmi fascicle fifty-eight. It is partially attained at the first stage; in the eighth stage, the sixth consciousness is completely attained and never arises, the seventh is partially absent, and the fifth and eighth completely possess it. Crude heaviness is according to its application; on the Buddha-ground it is completely absent. Fascicle nineteen of the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Bondage by marks binds sentient beings, and likewise through bondage by crude heaviness; only when one skillfully cultivates both śamatha and vipaśyanā are they both liberated." This corresponds to that explanation.