成唯識論掌中樞要 2.104

2.104

末那為識縛之本。今觀此意，若緣縛體，唯據煩惱障。若相縛體，據法執說。故此滅已，相縛解脫，此若有時，所起施等不能亡相。若依煩惱說有相縛，阿羅漢身應無有相，以依緣縛說名藏時，無時名「捨藏」，不名「捨相縛」。無法執時名「捨相縛」。若爾，生空智與法執俱，應稱相縛，由是總顯相應、所緣之縛，通三乘斷。相縛者唯菩薩斷。若由法執，即二乘生空觀亦應有相縛。又論但云染污末那為識依止，彼未滅時，相了別縛，不得解脫，故但由生執成了別縛。是故但應如《疏》中解。由有末那施等不亡相，即非七義中無相智所攝受，云何見道前及地上有漏施等成施等耶？今顯異無漏，其相不亡，其無相智所攝受。謂無第六識中執名「無相智」，非第七識執也。不爾，便無波羅密義。又相縛見名「相縛」，見縛相名「見縛」，見不明證，不自在故，由相縛。相無能證自在力，如何說見縛於相。不爾，如何所取、能取纏。

Manas is the root of the bondage of consciousness. Now examining this meaning: if one considers the entity of the bondage of the cognitive object (ālambana-bandha), it is based solely on the afflictive obstruction. If one considers the entity of the bondage of appearances (nimitta-bandha), it is explained based on the grasping of dharmas. Therefore, once this ceases, one is liberated from the bondage of appearances; while this exists, the giving and so forth that are initiated cannot obliterate appearances. If the bondage of appearances were explained based on afflictions, then an arhat's body would have no appearances, because when designated as 'store' based on the bondage of the cognitive object, there is no time when it is called 'relinquishing the store' that it is not called 'relinquishing the bondage of appearances'. When there is no grasping of dharmas, it is called 'relinquishing the bondage of appearances'. If so, when the wisdom of the emptiness of persons accompanies the grasping of dharmas, it should be called the bondage of appearances; by this it is generally shown that the bondage of association and of the cognitive object is abandoned throughout the three vehicles, whereas the bondage of appearances is abandoned only by bodhisattvas. If it were due to the grasping of dharmas, then the two vehicles' contemplation of the emptiness of persons would also have the bondage of appearances. Furthermore, the treatise merely says that the defiled manas is the support for consciousness, and as long as it has not ceased, the bondage of discriminating appearances cannot be liberated; thus, the bondage of discrimination is established solely through the grasping of persons. Therefore, one should understand it solely as explained in the Commentary. Because of the presence of manas, giving and so forth do not obliterate appearances, which means they are not gathered by the signless wisdom among the seven senses; how then could giving and so forth before the path of seeing and on the bhūmis that are with outflows constitute giving and so forth? Now it is shown that, differing from the uncontaminated, their appearance is not obliterated, and they are gathered by that signless wisdom. What is called 'signless wisdom' means the absence of grasping in the sixth consciousness, not the grasping in the seventh consciousness. Otherwise, there would be no meaning of pāramitā. Furthermore, that appearances bind the vision is called 'bondage of appearances'; that the vision binds appearances is called 'bondage of vision'. Because the vision is not clearly perceptive and not autonomous, it is due to the bondage of appearances. Appearances lack the autonomous power of perceptual cognition; how could one say that vision binds appearances? Otherwise, how could there be the entanglement of the grasped and the grasper?