金剛三昧經論 2.123

2.123

論曰：是示所入道理。於中有四：一者略明、二者重釋、三者偏執不當、四者達者勝利。初中言世間非世者、世間五法無所有故。住非住處者、常住涅槃、無所得故。修觀行者達五空時、出有入空故言出入。入空之時不取空性、雖不取空而不捨空、以之故言無有取捨。既入五空、何故不取？若無取者，如何不捨？為答是問，故第二釋諸法空相，法性非無故說入空。非無不無、不無不有，故無取捨。言非無者，謂法性理，不同兔角故。言不無者，謂觀行者而不遣故，不遣之者非無理故。言不有者，謂觀行者亦不存故，不存之者非有理故。法性如是，非定有無，是故達者不住二邊，故言無決定性不住有無，由是道理故無取捨。第三中言非彼有無凡聖之智者，凡夫存有而背於空，二乘背有而趣空寂。如是不離有無之智，而能測量安隱法性者，無有是處，故言非也。第四中言諸菩薩者，地前菩薩若知法性不有不無者，初發心時便成正覺，是故切言即得菩提。謂即發心知法性時，是時即得無上菩提。是義出《華嚴經．發心功德品》也。上來諸文每言決定性故，何故此中乃言無決定性？是不相違。所以然者？無決定義，無改定故。

The treatise states: This shows the principle that is entered. Herein there are four [points]: first, an outline explanation; second, a repeated exposition; third, one-sided attachment is improper; fourth, the supreme benefit of those who have attained realization. In the first part, when it says, "the worldly is not worldly," this is because the five worldly dharmas have no existence. "Abiding is no abiding-place" because permanent nirvāṇa is unobtainable. When practitioners of contemplative practice attain realization of the five emptinesses, they emerge from existence and enter into emptiness; hence it says "emerging and entering." When entering into emptiness, they do not grasp the nature of emptiness; although they do not grasp emptiness, they do not abandon emptiness; therefore it is said that "there is neither grasping nor abandoning." Having entered into the five emptinesses, why do they not grasp? If there is no grasping, how is it that they do not abandon? To answer this question, the second [part] explains that "the empty mark of all dharmas: the dharma-nature is not non-existent"; hence entering emptiness is spoken of. "It is not non-existent yet not non-empty, neither non-empty nor existent"; therefore there is neither grasping nor abandoning. When it says "not non-existent," this means that the principle of the dharma-nature is unlike a rabbit's horn. When it says "not non-empty," this means that practitioners of contemplative practice do not eliminate it, and the fact that it is not eliminated is because it is not the principle of non-existence. When it says "not existent," this means that practitioners of contemplative practice also do not preserve it, and the fact that it is not preserved is because it is not the principle of existence. The dharma-nature being thus, it is not determinately existent or non-existent; therefore those who have attained realization do not abide in the two extremes. Hence it says: "having no determinate nature, it does not abide in existence or non-existence." By this principle, there is neither grasping nor abandoning. In the third [part], when it says "neither is it by the cognition of the ordinary or the noble regarding existence or non-existence," ordinary beings preserve existence and turn their backs on emptiness, while [followers of] the two vehicles turn their backs on existence and incline toward empty quiescence. For such cognition that has not departed from existence and non-existence to be able to measure the tranquil dharma-nature is impossible; hence it says "neither is it." In the fourth [part], when it says "the bodhisattvas," if bodhisattvas prior to the [ten] grounds know that the dharma-nature is neither existent nor non-existent, upon first generating the thought [of awakening] they immediately achieve correct awakening; therefore it emphatically states that they "immediately attain bodhi." This means that at the very time of generating the thought and knowing the dharma-nature, they at that time immediately attain unexcelled bodhi. This meaning comes from the "Chapter on the Merits of the Aspiration to Awakening" in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Since the preceding passages repeatedly spoke of a "determinate nature," why does it now say "no determinate nature" here? These do not contradict each other. Why is that? The meaning of "no determinate [nature]" is that there is no fixed and unalterable nature.