成唯識論了義燈 7.107

7.107

《論》：「此加行位未遣相縛」者，本釋如《疏》。今又助釋：此相縛體，由第七識二執為本，令諸識中不能亡相，為相所拘。然前第五云：由我執故，令六識中所起施等不能亡相。據執我能行布施等及有受者，若執所施不亡相者，豈我執耶？由執法有，故不亡相。設云見所施屬我之物是我所見，亦我執起者，於餘度中不亡相者，豈皆執為我所耶？故《瑜伽論》但云：染污末那為依止故，彼未滅時，相了別縛不得解脫。不言由我望菩薩說名為染污，二乘不行無相施等。又前釋言：「言相縛者，謂於境相不能了達，如幻事等」。又若我執為相縛者，二乘無學斷此我執，應無相縛。此等迴心、加行等位應無二縛。又觀安立應能斷縛，何故《瑜伽》六十四云「若離非安立諦，二種解脫不應道理」？二乘但能觀安立諦，故知二縛未得解脫。

Regarding the treatise's statement: "This stage of preparation has not yet dispelled the bondage of appearances," the original explanation is as in the Commentary. Now I provide an additional explanation: As for the essence of this bondage of appearances, it takes the two graspings of the seventh consciousness as its root, causing the various consciousnesses to be unable to obliterate appearances and to be bound by appearances. However, the preceding fifth fascicle states: Due to self-grasping, giving and so forth produced in the six consciousnesses cannot obliterate appearances. This is based on grasping that "I" am able to practice giving and so forth and that there is a recipient; if one grasps that the gift itself does not obliterate its appearance, is that self-grasping? It is due to grasping phenomena as existent that one does not obliterate appearances. Even if one says that seeing the gift as belonging to oneself is the view of what belongs to the self, and is thus also the arising of self-grasping, when appearances are not obliterated in the other perfections, are they all grasped as belonging to the self? Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi merely states: Because defiled manas serves as the support, as long as it has not been extinguished, the bondage of discriminating appearances cannot be liberated. It does not state that it is called defiled with respect to the bodhisattva because of self-grasping, while the two vehicles do not practice markless giving and so forth. Furthermore, the previous explanation stated: "As for the bondage of appearances, it refers to not being able to fully comprehend objective appearances as being like illusions and so forth." Moreover, if self-grasping were the bondage of appearances, when the non-learners of the two vehicles sever this self-grasping, they should have no bondage of appearances. Such practitioners in the stage of turning the mind and in the stage of preparation should then lack the two bondages. Furthermore, contemplating the conventional (saṃvṛti) should be able to sever the bondage; why then does Yogācārabhūmi fascicle sixty-four state: "Apart from the non-established truth (niradhisthāna-satya), the two kinds of liberation are unreasonable"? The two vehicles are only capable of contemplating the established truth; therefore we know they have not attained liberation from the two bondages.