Chapter 16. Investigation of Bondage and Liberation

If formations wander in saṃsāra, then as permanent they do not wander, and as impermanent they do not wander either; the same reasoning applies to the living being as well.

If a person wanders in saṃsāra among the skandhas, the āyatanas and the dhātus, then, sought for in five ways, that person is not there; who, then, will wander?

Wandering from one appropriation to another, there would be a ceasing of existence; and if there is such a ceasing and no appropriation — who is he, and what will wander?

In no way is nirvāṇa of formations possible; in no way is nirvāṇa of a living being possible either.

Those that have the property of arising and passing away — the formations — are neither bound nor liberated; in the same way a living being is neither bound nor liberated.

If appropriation is bondage, then the one who has appropriation is not bound; nor is the one who has no appropriation bound; in what state, then, is he bound?

If bondage could bind the one who is to be bound, it would have to exist before him; but there is no such thing — the rest has been said by way of the [analysis] of what is being gone over, what has been gone over and what is yet to be gone over.

One who is bound is not liberated, and one who is not bound is likewise not liberated; if one who is bound were being liberated, bondage and liberation would occur at the same time.

“I shall attain nirvāṇa without appropriation; nirvāṇa will be mine” — those who grasp in this way have a great grasping at appropriation.

Where there is neither a superimposing of nirvāṇa nor a removing of saṃsāra — what saṃsāra is there, and what nirvāṇa is there to be discriminated?