大乘義章 7.20

7.20

次辨所繫。於中有二：一對繫業明其所繫、二對繫法明其所繫。業所繫中，分別有四：一就有漏無漏分別。依如《毘曇》，有漏報法從業所生，是業所繫；無漏不從有漏業生，非業所繫。若依《成實》，一切有漏皆從過去有漏業生，是業所繫；無漏之法亦從過去施戒等生，但是業果而非業繫。何故如是？經中說有不繫受故。又無漏法起必藉因，生必託緣，過去所修施戒等善以之為緣，方便無漏以之為因，因力大故所以不繫。論釋如是。若言因果共相屬著名之為繫，理亦無傷。大乘法中，真證無漏非業所繫，變易無漏是業所繫。二三性分別。依如《毘曇》，無記法中，報無記法是其業果，為業所繫，餘非業繫。若依《成實》，有漏法中三性之法，皆從過去有漏業生，是業所繫。故彼論言「我說業報有其三種，善、惡、無記。言善報者，有人過去修善法故，今報純善。不善報者，不能男等貪欲之報，毒蛇蝎等瞋恚之報，如是一切。無記之報，義在可知。是業報故，是業所繫。」又彼論言「諸所生法，皆業為本。若無業本，云何能生？故知諸法皆業所繫。」三內外分別。毘曇法中，眾生內報從業而生，是業所繫；外山河等一切境界，不從業生，非業所繫。問曰：一切山河大地，乃是眾生依報之果，云何說言非業所繫？又人作善便生好處，若人造惡便生惡處，云何說言非業繫乎？《毘曇》釋言「外山河等，還用外法四大為因，不由業起，故非業繫。言作善業生於好處、作不善業生惡處者，業力如風，善業風故，吹諸眾生好處受樂；惡業風故，吹諸眾生惡處受苦。然所住處，不由業起，故非業繫。」若依《成實》，一切內外皆是業果，並是所繫。問曰：外法非眾生數，先自有之，不由業有，云何說言是業繫乎？又復外法同類相生，如豆生豆、麥生麥等，何用於業，而云業果業所繫乎？《成實》釋言「外法雖復非眾生數，而是眾生共業果故，亦從業起。若言外法同類相生不由業者，是義不然。云何不然？如彼眾生，雖從父母和合所生，亦假於業。外法亦爾，雖復同類，迭相因起，由業何傷。又一切物，不盡從於同類因生，如劫初時一切萬物無因而起，明知由業，由業生故，是業所繫。」四三聚分別。言三聚者，所謂色、心、非色非心。依如《毘曇》，色法之中，唯報五根及彼扶根色香味觸，是其業果，業之所繫；自餘一切方便長養眼等五根及外五塵，皆非業果，非業所繫。心法之中，唯有報生心心數法，是其業果，業之所繫；自餘一切三性心法，皆非業果，非業所繫。非心法中，唯有命根無想天報眾生種類及彼相應生住滅等，是其報法，業之所繫；餘皆非報，非業所繫。若依《成實》，有漏法中，一切色法、一切心法及非色心，通是業果，是業所繫。上來四門，對業分別。次對繫法明其所繫。依如《毘曇》，欲界地中一切有漏，為欲界中煩惱緣縛，名欲界繫。色界地中一切有漏，為色界中煩惱緣縛，名色界繫。無色亦爾。《成實論》中不存此義（此三門竟）。

Next is to explain that which is bound. Herein there are two [aspects]: first, explaining that which is bound with respect to binding karma; second, explaining that which is bound with respect to binding dharmas. Within that which is bound by karma, there are four distinctions: First, distinction based on sāsrava and anāsrava. According to the Abhidharma, sāsrava resultant dharmas are produced from karma and are that which is bound by karma; anāsrava [dharmas] are not produced from sāsrava karma and are not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, all sāsrava [dharmas] are produced from past sāsrava karma and are bound by karma; anāsrava dharmas are also produced from past [deeds of] generosity, precepts, and the like, yet they are karmic fruits but not bound by karma. Why is this? Because the sūtras teach that there are unbounded experiences. Furthermore, an anāsrava dharma in arising must rely on a cause and in coming to be must depend on conditions; the good of generosity, precepts, and the like cultivated in the past serves as their condition, while expedient anāsrava serves as their cause—because the causal force is great, they are therefore not bound. Such is the treatise's explanation. If one says that cause and effect mutually belonging and clinging to one another is called 'bound', there is also no harm in that principle. Within the Mahāyāna teaching, truly realized anāsrava is not bound by karma, whereas transformational anāsrava is bound by karma. Second, distinction based on the three natures. According to the Abhidharma, among indeterminate dharmas, resultant indeterminate dharmas are karmic fruits and are bound by karma, whereas the rest are not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, among sāsrava dharmas, dharmas of all three natures are produced from past sāsrava karma and are bound by karma. Hence that treatise states: 'I say that karmic retributions are of three kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. Regarding wholesome retributions: because someone cultivated wholesome dharmas in the past, their present retribution is purely wholesome. Regarding unwholesome retributions: the retributions of desire such as being a non-man (paṇḍaka) and the like, the retributions of anger such as poisonous snakes, scorpions, and the like—all such things. Retributions that are indeterminate can be understood by their meaning. Because they are karmic retributions, they are bound by karma.' Furthermore, that treatise states: 'All dharmas that are produced have karma as their root. If there were no root of karma, how could they arise? Hence it is known that all dharmas are bound by karma.' Third, distinction based on internal and external. In the Abhidharma teaching, the internal retribution of sentient beings is produced from karma and is bound by karma; external mountains, rivers, and all other objective realms are not produced from karma and are not bound by karma. Question: Are not all mountains, rivers, and the great earth the environmental retribution (adhipatiphala) of sentient beings? Why do you say they are not bound by karma? Moreover, if a person does good, they are reborn in an auspicious place; if a person commits evil, they are reborn in a miserable place. Why do you say they are not bound by karma? The Abhidharma explains: 'External mountains, rivers, and the like still take external dharmas—the four great elements—as their cause, and do not arise due to karma; therefore they are not bound by karma. Regarding the statement that doing wholesome karma leads to birth in an auspicious place and doing unwholesome karma leads to birth in a miserable place: the force of karma is like the wind; by the wind of wholesome karma, sentient beings are blown to auspicious places to experience pleasure; by the wind of unwholesome karma, sentient beings are blown to miserable places to suffer pain. However, the places where they dwell do not arise due to karma; therefore they are not bound by karma.' If according to the Tattvasiddhi, all internal and external [dharmas] are fruits of karma, and all are that which is bound. Question: External dharmas are not included among sentient beings; they exist naturally beforehand and do not exist due to karma. How can you say they are bound by karma? Furthermore, external dharmas are produced from homogenous causes—just as beans produce beans, wheat produces wheat, and so forth—what use is there for karma, that you call them fruits of karma and bound by karma? The Tattvasiddhi explains: 'Although external dharmas are not included among sentient beings, because they are the fruit of sentient beings' collective karma, they also arise from karma. If one says that external dharmas are produced from homogenous causes and do not depend on karma, this doctrine is incorrect. Why is it not so? Just as sentient beings, although born from the union of parents, also rely upon karma. External dharmas are likewise: although they are homogenous and mutually arise due to one another, what harm is there in them depending on karma? Furthermore, all things are not entirely produced from homogenous causes, as at the beginning of the kalpa all the myriad things arose without [apparent external] causes; it is clearly known that they depend on karma. Because they are produced by karma, they are bound by karma.' Fourth, distinction based on the three aggregates. The 'three aggregates' are matter, mind, and that which is neither matter nor mind. According to the Abhidharma, among material dharmas, only the five retributive faculties and the material form, sound, smell, taste, and tangibles that support those faculties are the fruits of karma and bound by karma; all the rest—the five faculties of the eye and so forth nurtured through expedients, as well as the external five dusts—are not karmic fruits and not bound by karma. Among mental dharmas, only mind and mental factors (caitta) arising as retribution are karmic fruits and bound by karma; all the rest of mental dharmas of the three natures are not karmic fruits and not bound by karma. Among dharmas that are neither mental [nor material], only the life-faculty, the retribution of the non-conceptual heaven, the types of sentient beings, and their associated arising, abiding, and cessation are retributive dharmas and bound by karma; the rest are all non-retributive and not bound by karma. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, among sāsrava dharmas, all material dharmas, all mental dharmas, and that which is neither matter nor mind are universally fruits of karma and bound by karma. The above four aspects are distinctions made with respect to karma. Next is to explain that which is bound with respect to binding dharmas. According to the Abhidharma, all sāsrava [dharmas] within the plane of the desire realm are bound by the afflictions of the desire realm as their object-conditions, and are called bound to the desire realm. All sāsrava [dharmas] within the plane of the form realm are bound by the afflictions of the form realm as their object-conditions, and are called bound to the form realm. The formless realm is also like this. In the Tattvasiddhi Treatise, this doctrine is not maintained (here ends the third section).