金剛三昧經論 2.133

2.133

論曰：答中有二，一者正答、二者歎深。初中言無不住無者，先言不無真實句中謂無之名不住無義，是故不無之名亦不當於有義，以之故言不無不有，是明無名之名不當有義之義。不有之法不即住無者，雖融俗為真而不守真無之法故。不無之相不即住有者，雖融真為俗而不守俗有之相故。以真俗不住有無故，不無真實無二之理；真俗不無二諦故，不有真實無二之理。故言非以有無而詮得理，是明無義之義不稱有名之名。菩薩已下，第二歎深。於中有二：直歎、釋歎。無名之名不無於名者，佛所說名不當有義之義，故為無名之名；而當無義之義，故言不無於名也。無義之義不無於義者，佛所體義不稱有名之名，故為無義之義；而稱無名之名，故言不無於義也。如是不有名義而亦不無名義，由是道理不可思議也。

The treatise states: In the answer there are two: first, the direct answer; second, praising the profundity. In the first part, when it says "non-existence does not abide in non-existence," in the previously stated phrase "not devoid of the real," the name of non-existence does not abide in the referent of non-existence; therefore the name of "not devoid" also does not correspond to the referent of existence. On this account, it says "neither non-existent nor existent"; this clarifies that the name of namelessness does not correspond to the meaning of the referent of existence. "The dharma that is not existent does not immediately abide in non-existence": although the conventional is fused into the ultimate, it does not hold fast to the dharma of ultimate non-existence. "The mark that is not non-existent does not immediately abide in existence": although the ultimate is fused into the conventional, it does not hold fast to the mark of conventional existence. Because ultimate and conventional do not abide in existence or non-existence, it is not devoid of the non-dual principle of the real; because ultimate and conventional are not devoid of the two truths, it does not have an existent non-dual principle of the real. Therefore it says, "it is not through existence or non-existence that the principle is expressed and attained"; this clarifies that the referent of referentlessness does not match the name of existent name. From "Bodhisattva" onwards is the second [part], praising the profundity. Herein there are two: direct praise and explanatory praise. "The name of namelessness is not devoid of name": the name spoken by the Buddha does not correspond to the referent of an existent referent, and thus is the name of namelessness; yet it corresponds to the referent of referentlessness, and therefore it says "is not devoid of name." "The referent of referentlessness is not devoid of referent": the referent realized by the Buddha does not match the name of an existent name, and thus is the referent of referentlessness; yet it matches the name of namelessness, and therefore it says "is not devoid of referent." Being thus, it does not possess name and referent, yet it is also not devoid of name and referent; through this principle, it is inconceivable.