金剛三昧經論 1.73

1.73

論曰：此是重詳。於中有二：先詳是生、後詳無生。若有住心生於無生之境，即是以生滅其境界之生，故言若生無生以生滅生。雖滅境界之生，而取其滅之無，於滅無境能取心生，生滅俱存，豈曰無生耶？如是二句詳前是生。真無生忍即不如是，外不存於所取之滅，內不生其能取之生，以之故言生滅俱滅。然此俱滅非謂還無，推求本生不得其生，既不得生何得還滅？于時證會本來空寂，故言本生不生心常空寂。如是空寂能所平等，無能住心住於空境，故言空寂無住。如是乃名無生法忍，故言乃是無生。演無生觀竟在於前。

The commentary says: This is the reiteration with detailed analysis. In this there are two: first analyzing in detail that it is arising, and later analyzing in detail non-arising. If a mind that abides arises regarding the realm of non-arising, it is using arising to extinguish the arising of that realm; hence it says, "if one gives rise to non-arising, using arising to extinguish arising." Although it extinguishes the arising of the realm, it grasps at the non-existence of that cessation, and regarding the realm of ceased non-existence, the grasping mind arises; since arising and cessation both persist, how could it be called non-arising? These two lines analyze in detail the previous "is arising." True forbearance of non-arising is not like this: externally it does not posit the grasped cessation, and internally it does not give rise to the grasping arising; for this reason it says, "arising and cessation are both extinguished." However, this extinguishing of both does not mean returning to non-existence; inquiring into fundamental arising, its arising cannot be apprehended, and since arising cannot be apprehended, how could there be a return to cessation? At that time one realizes and tallies with fundamental emptiness and quiescence; hence it says, "fundamentally arisen it does not arise, the mind is constantly empty and quiescent." Such emptiness and quiescence has equality of subject and object: there is no abiding mind that abides in an empty realm; hence it says, "empty and quiescent without abiding." Only this is named the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas; hence it says, "is truly non-arising." The exposition of the contemplation of non-arising concluded above.