成唯識論掌中樞要 2.105

2.105

下文雖由煩惱引施等業而不俱起，非有漏正因，即顯緣縛等非有漏正體。〈六十五〉說：現量所行，有所緣縛，其清淨色、不相應善及一分無記心、心所，非有所緣縛，但由隨眠，名有漏，與煩惱種俱者。此依別義，亦不相違等廣說太精，應取彼會，即顯五境有所緣縛，餘根心等即無是義，但顯與此表有漏，俱言相順，然與〈五十九〉斷二縛義相違。由此所緣，縛有二：一、親，唯現量所行；二、疎，即淨色等。展轉心、境互相增故，言淨色、善心、一分無記等，非有所緣縛者，據親相分非。故此論下第八等說二縛斷等者，依疎義說，不爾，便與二論相違。更勘和會，既言雖由煩惱引施等業而非正因，我能行施，明但相縛，非有漏因。如斷緣縛，雖斷見道及修前八，以未全盡，不名為斷。有漏應然，如緣一色，五識及意二所緣縛，並以第七識與漏俱，言要至金剛方可斷盡。此如修道初品所斷，雖亦為後八品惑縛，然得名「斷」，以自力強故。有漏亦爾，緣縛、相應二力增上故說，未斷第七，亦名為「斷」。若爾，何故前二既勝，何故不為有漏正因，而取漏俱？或復縛據二縛，有漏據漏俱，斷、依二縛，故可說斷，不約漏俱說斷。亦不相違。無始法爾種子不曾現起與第七俱，云何得成有漏。不要現行與第七惑俱，方名有漏。若種、若現無始皆與第七惑俱，互相增益，相隨順故，並成有漏，非無漏種亦能相順。又言法爾不要七俱。非法爾者必俱增益，然〈六十五〉等有漏、無漏義等，如下第八卷釋。

Although the text below states that giving and other karmas are initiated by afflictions yet do not arise simultaneously with them, and thus are not the primary cause of outflows, this indicates that the bondage of the cognitive object and so forth are not the primary substance of outflows. Chapter sixty-five states: 'What is operated upon by direct perception has the bondage of the cognitive object; pure matter, unassociated wholesome dharmas, and a portion of indeterminate citta and caitasikas do not have the bondage of the cognitive object, but are called with-outflows merely due to latent dispositions (anuśaya), being associated with seeds of affliction.' This extensive explanation based on a distinct meaning, without contradiction, is exceedingly refined, and one should take it and harmonize it. This indicates that the five sensory objects have the bondage of the cognitive object, whereas the remaining sense faculties and mind do not have this characteristic; it merely shows conformity with the statement that this indicates outflows. However, it contradicts the explanation of abandoning the two bondages in Chapter fifty-nine. Thus, the bondage of the cognitive object is twofold: first, direct, which is operated upon solely by direct perception; second, indirect, which refers to pure matter and so forth. Because mind and object mutually augment each other sequentially, the statement that pure matter, wholesome minds, and a portion of indeterminate dharmas do not have the bondage of the cognitive object is made based on the fact that they are not direct objective aspects (nimitta-bhāga). Therefore, when the eighth fascicle below in this treatise and others speak of abandoning the two bondages, it is explained based on the indirect sense; otherwise, it would contradict the two treatises. Further investigating and harmonizing: since it states that although giving and other karmas are initiated by afflictions, they are not the primary cause, when 'I can practice giving' occurs, it clearly is merely the bondage of appearances, not the cause of outflows. Just as in abandoning the bondage of the cognitive object, although one abandons it in the path of seeing and the prior eight grades of cultivation, because it is not entirely exhausted, it is not called 'abandoned'. It should be the same for outflows: just as when taking a single color as an object, the two bondages of the cognitive object in the five consciousnesses and the mental consciousness, together with the seventh consciousness being accompanied by outflows, are said to be abandoned completely only upon reaching the Vajropamasamādhi. This is like that which is abandoned by the first grade of the path of cultivation: although it is still bound by the afflictions of the subsequent eight grades, it nevertheless receives the name 'abandoned' because its own strength is powerful. It is the same with outflows: because the two forces of the bondage of the cognitive object and association are predominant, it is said that even before abandoning the seventh, it is also called 'abandoned'. If so, why are the former two superior, yet not taken as the primary cause of outflows, while being accompanied by outflows is taken? Or again, bondage is understood in terms of the two bondages, outflows are understood in terms of being accompanied by outflows; abandonment is based on the two bondages, so it can be spoken of as abandonment, not stated with reference to being accompanied by outflows. There is also no contradiction. If beginningless innately endowed seeds had never arisen actively together with the seventh, how could they become with-outflows? It is not necessary that active operation be accompanied by the afflictions of the seventh for it to be called with-outflows. Whether seeds or active operations, from beginningless time all are accompanied by the afflictions of the seventh, mutually augmenting and according with each other, so they all become with-outflows; it is not the case that uncontaminated seeds can also accord with them. Moreover, it is said that the innately endowed do not require being accompanied by the seventh. Those that are not innately endowed must augment each other simultaneously. However, the definitions of with-outflows and without-outflows in Chapter sixty-five and so forth will be explained below in the eighth fascicle.