大乘義章 6.17

6.17

次明諸使縛義不同。縛有二種：一者緣縛、二相應縛。兩義分別：一對非使以辨二縛。十使煩惱緣外六塵，緣而繫縛，名為緣縛。同時之中，縛想受等諸心數法，名相應縛。二諸使相望以辨二縛。於中略以四句分別：一者緣縛而非相應縛、二者相應縛而非緣縛、三者緣縛亦相應縛、四非緣縛亦非相應縛。初言緣縛非相應者，就彼有漏緣使之中，除其自品相應無明，自餘一切更互相望，得相緣故，名為緣縛；不同時故，非相應縛。有漏緣使望無漏緣，亦是緣縛，得緣彼故；非相應縛，不同時故。言相應縛非緣縛者，無漏緣中邪見及疑，望其自品相應無明，是相應縛，以同時故；非是緣縛，以無漏緣不緣使故。所言緣縛亦相應者，就彼有漏緣使之中，除不共無明，自餘一切，望其自品相應無明，亦是緣縛，亦相應縛。如彼身見，前起已滅，後起之者緣前身見相應無明，名為緣縛；後起身見相應無明，緣前身見，亦是緣縛。問曰：後起相應無明不別緣法，云何能得緣前身見？與後身見相應緣故。身見無明同時起者，名相應縛，諸使齊爾。不共無明望相應無明，無相應義，是故除之，無二無明一時並故。又不共無明望於餘使，亦無相應義，是故除之。無漏緣使，不緣有漏，是以不說。言非緣縛非相應者，無漏緣中不共無明，望相應無明及望餘使，非是緣縛，緣無漏故；非相應縛，不同時故。無漏緣中邪見及疑，除相應無明，望於餘使，亦非緣縛，緣無漏故；非相應縛，不同時故（此二門竟）。

Next, the differing meanings of binding by the proclivities are explained. There are two kinds of binding: first, cognitive binding; second, associated binding. These are differentiated according to two meanings: First, the two bindings are analyzed in contrast to non-proclivities. When the ten proclivities cognize the six external dusts, cognizing and binding them, this is called cognitive binding. At the same time, binding the various mental factors such as conception and feeling is called associated binding. Second, the two bindings are analyzed by comparing the proclivities with one another. Here they are differentiated briefly by four alternatives: 1. cognitive binding and not associated binding; 2. associated binding and not cognitive binding; 3. both cognitive binding and associated binding; 4. neither cognitive binding nor associated binding. First, 'cognitive binding and not associated' means: among those proclivities that cognize the tainted, excluding ignorance associated within their own category, when all the rest are compared with one another, because they can cognize one another, it is called cognitive binding; because they are not simultaneous, they are not associated binding. When proclivities that cognize the tainted are compared with those that cognize the untainted, this is also cognitive binding, because they can cognize them; they are not associated binding, because they are not simultaneous. 'Associated binding and not cognitive binding' means: when wrong view and doubt among those that cognize the untainted are compared with ignorance associated within their own category, this is associated binding, because they are simultaneous; it is not cognitive binding, because those that cognize the untainted do not cognize proclivities. 'Both cognitive binding and associated binding' means: among those proclivities that cognize the tainted, excluding unshared ignorance, when all the rest are compared with ignorance associated within their own category, it is both cognitive binding and associated binding. For example, when that identity view previously arose and has ceased, a subsequently arising one cognizes the ignorance associated with the preceding identity view, which is called cognitive binding; the ignorance associated with the subsequently arising identity view cognizes the preceding identity view, which is also cognitive binding. Question: Since subsequently arising associated ignorance does not cognize dharmas separately, how can it cognize the preceding identity view? Because it cognizes in association with the subsequent identity view. When identity view and ignorance arise simultaneously, this is called associated binding; all proclivities are alike in this. When unshared ignorance is compared with associated ignorance, there is no meaning of association, and therefore it is excluded, because two kinds of ignorance cannot coexist simultaneously. Furthermore, when unshared ignorance is compared with the other proclivities, there is also no meaning of association, and therefore it is excluded. Proclivities that cognize the untainted do not cognize the tainted, and for this reason are not mentioned. 'Neither cognitive binding nor associated binding' means: when unshared ignorance among those that cognize the untainted is compared with associated ignorance and with the other proclivities, it is not cognitive binding, because it cognizes the untainted; it is not associated binding, because they are not simultaneous. When wrong view and doubt among those that cognize the untainted, excluding associated ignorance, are compared with the other proclivities, they are also not cognitive binding, because they cognize the untainted; they are not associated binding, because they are not simultaneous. (This concludes the second section.)