金剛三昧經論 2.19

2.19

論曰：此下第二明無生理。於中有二：先喻、次合。喻中有二：先明四不、後顯八不。言四不者，待緣故不自生、自種故不他生、無作故不共生、有用故不無生。又復未生時無自故，不從自生。已生時已有故，不須自生。自既不成，待誰有他？自他既無，何得有共？有因而生既不可得，何況得有無因而生？如是求生皆無所得。言不因生無生者，明不無因而生，謂不能生因無而果得生也。何以故下，次釋伏疑。疑者意曰：三不可爾，第三云何？意謂菓生，種子為親因，地水為疎緣，此二共合故有菓生。云何而言不共生耶？是故問言何以故也。緣代謝故者，明彼二緣先代後謝不得暫停，停時既無則無功用，功用無故俱不生果。如偈說言「諸行皆剎那，住尚無況用。」故又求代謝無生無滅。所以然者？既無暫住則無有生，生無有故則無有滅，故言緣起非生、緣謝非滅，如是推求隱顯皆無。隱者，種子在土下故。顯者，芽莖出地上故。根理寂滅者，推其樹根及樹幹理，求生菓因畢竟無起，故言寂滅，在無有處不見所住。所以然者？決定性故。決定性義如前所說。

The commentary states: From here below is the second [part], clarifying the principle of non-arising. Therein are two: first, the metaphor, and next, the application. In the metaphor, there are two: first, clarifying the four negations, and later, revealing the eight negations. Regarding the four negations: depending on conditions, it does not arise from itself; having its own seed, it does not arise from other; lacking agency, it does not arise from both; having efficacy, it is not without arising. Furthermore, prior to arising there is no self, so it does not arise from self. When already arisen, it already exists, so it does not need to arise from self. Since self is not established, depending on what could there be an other? Since self and other are absent, how could there be both? Since arising with a cause is unobtainable, how much less could there be arising without a cause? In this way, seeking arising, nothing is obtained. The statement 'does not arise uncaused, and is without arising' clarifies that it does not arise without a cause, meaning that it is impossible that, when a productive cause is absent, a fruit can arise. From 'Why is this?' onward, it next resolves a latent doubt. The doubter's thought is: The other three may be so, but how is it with the third? He supposes that for a fruit to arise, the seed is the direct cause, and earth and water are the indirect conditions; when these two combine, the fruit arises. Why say it does not arise from both? Therefore, it asks: 'Why is this?' 'Because conditions replace and expire' clarifies that those two conditions, the former being replaced and the latter expiring, cannot pause even for an instant. Since there is no time of pausing, there is no function; because there is no function, neither generates the fruit. As a verse states: 'All conditioned things are momentary; / They do not even abide, let alone have function.' Furthermore, seeking replacing and expiring, there is neither arising nor ceasing. Why is this? Since there is no momentary abiding, there is no arising; since arising does not exist, there is no ceasing. Hence it says: 'Dependent arising is not arising; the expiration of conditions is not cessation.' Seeking in this way, both concealment and manifestation are absent. 'Concealment' refers to the seed being under the soil; 'manifestation' refers to sprouts and stems emerging above ground. 'Roots and trunk are quiescent and extinguished': analyzing the principle of the tree's roots and trunk, seeking the cause that produces the fruit, it ultimately never arises; hence it says 'quiescent and extinguished, it is in no place, and its abiding is not seen.' Why is this? 'Because it is of a determinate nature.' The meaning of determinate nature is as expounded above.