金剛經纂要刊定記 4.116

4.116

Regarding "moreover, not abiding, etc.": this is a concessive objection. Even if the cause were accomplished through non-abiding, this too would be unreasonable; hence it states next: 'because cause and fruit are not of the same kind.' A cause and its fruit must be of the same kind: if existent, both are existent; if empty, both are empty; defiled and pure are both like this. Since the marks of physical form are the fruit, how could non-abiding be the cause? A cause that is empty and a fruit that is existent would hardly be reasonable. Now, examining the cause by the fruit, the cause ought to have abiding; when the Buddha speaks of non-abiding, is he deceiving me?