金剛經纂要刊定記 1.61

1.61

一切清淨者。此淨與上淨字不同，上即對染之淨，此名真空曰淨。以聲聞怖空故言清淨，清淨即空義也。《大般若》中，或則云空或言清淨，然萬法雖多不出心境，恐收不盡，又約垢淨重明，斯則是法皆攝竟無所遺，故言一切也。故《大般若》云：「善現！般若波羅蜜多清淨故色清淨」，乃至「諸佛無上菩提悉皆清淨。」又非謂泯却心境、顯真心了，然後亡垢淨、顯真空。此乃文家成隔句對。若欲順義，應云心境齊泯、垢淨雙亡，一切清淨即是真心。理則明矣！謂真心之中，本無心境垢淨等法，名之為空。非謂無於心法成於斷滅。故《唯識頌》云：「初即相無性，次無自然性。後由遠離前，所執我法性，此諸法勝義。亦即是真如，常如其性故，即唯識實性。」然此與前迷真習妄，正為翻對。若無前意焉起此文。

Regarding 'all are pure': this 'pure' differs from the word 'purity' above; the former is purity contrasted with defilement, whereas this designates true emptiness as 'pure'. Because śrāvakas fear emptiness, it is termed 'pure'; 'pure' is precisely the meaning of emptiness. In the Great Prajñāpāramitā, it sometimes says 'empty' and sometimes says 'pure'. Although the ten thousand phenomena are numerous, they do not go beyond mind and objects; fearing that this did not cover everything, he clarified it again in terms of defilement and purity. Thus all phenomena are subsumed without any remainder, hence it says 'all'. Therefore the Great Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Subhūti! Because the perfection of wisdom is pure, form is pure,' up to: 'The unexcelled bodhi of all Buddhas is entirely pure.' Furthermore, it does not mean that having obliterated mind and objects and revealed the true mind, one then eliminates defilement and purity and reveals true emptiness. This is merely the writer forming an alternating parallel antithesis. If one wishes to conform to the meaning, it should read: 'Mind and objects are both obliterated, defilement and purity are both eliminated; all being pure is precisely the true mind.' The principle is then clear! That is to say, within the true mind, phenomena such as mind, objects, defilement, and purity are fundamentally absent; this is called emptiness. It does not mean that the absence of mental phenomena results in annihilation. Hence the Triṃśikā says: 'The first is the naturelessness of characteristics; the next is the naturelessness of self-nature. The last is due to being far removed from the previously grasped nature of self and phenomena. This is the ultimate truth of all phenomena; it is also tathatā, because it is constantly thus in its nature; it is precisely the true nature of consciousness-only.' Now, this forms a direct antithesis to the previous 'being deluded about the real and habituating the false'. If there were no earlier meaning, how could this text arise?