金剛三昧經論 1.97

1.97

論曰：答意有二，先許無止、後遮無止。許者，始覺不異本覺故。遮者，始覺非唯是本覺故。許中息與止何異者？妄起動故可息、心馳散故可止，而本無起無馳，故無可息可止耳。無分者，無相分於見故。無別者，無見別於相故。相見既無分別，現識本來不生。去來不生，愚智共知故。約現在明本不生，既無所止不覺之生，即無能止始覺之異。依不異門如是許也。亦非無止者，非無不異之始覺故。止無止故者，能止無生之妄心故。雖生不可得，而非徒無生故。非徒無生，故不無所止，所以非無能止之覺。如是答也。

The commentary says: The intent of the answer has two parts: first conceding non-cessation, and then rejecting non-cessation. Conceding it is because initial awakening is not distinct from innate awakening. Rejecting it is because initial awakening is not merely innate awakening. Regarding what difference there is between quelling and ceasing within the concession: because delusion actively arises, it can be quelled; because the mind scatters outward, it can be ceased. Yet since originally there is no arising and no scattering, there is simply nothing to be quelled or ceased. "Without differentiation" means that there is no objective aspect differentiated from the subjective seeing. "Without distinction" means that there is no subjective seeing distinct from the objective aspect. Since the objective aspect and subjective seeing are without distinction, manifest consciousness originally does not arise. That past and future are unborn is known equally by both the foolish and the wise; hence original non-arising is explained with respect to the present. Since the arising of non-awakening that is the object of cessation does not exist, the distinction of initial awakening that is the agent of cessation likewise does not exist. According to the gateway of non-distinction, it is conceded in this way. "Yet it is also not the absence of cessation" means that it is not without initial awakening that is not distinct [from innate awakening]. "Because cessation is without cessation" means that one can cease the deluded mind of non-arising. Although arising is ungraspable, it is not merely non-arising. Because it is not merely non-arising, there is indeed an object of cessation, and therefore it is not without the awakening that is the agent of cessation. In this way it answers.