成唯識論了義燈 7.107

7.107

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.