金剛三昧經論 2.25

2.25

論曰：此是第四顯是。言了別心性者，即以自心了自心性。如經言「若能以其能取作意，還能通達能取作意，如是方乃能緣所緣平等平等。無漏智生，通達聖諦故。」知心性如者，知自觀心體性平等故。是性亦如者，是能知用，用性平等故。如是觀心體用平等，無生無滅、無始無終，以之故言是無生行。上明四不之無生者，顯無生理，理通凡聖。今明知如之無生者，明無生行，行別在聖。在聖之行與理一味，遍通之理與智平等，平等一味故聖人所不能異也，有通有別故聖人所不能同也。不能同者即同而異也，不能異者即異而同也。同者辨同於異、異者明異於同，明異於同者非分同為異也，辨同於異者非銷異為同也。良由同非銷異故不可說是同，異非分同故不可說是異，但以不可說異故可得說是同，不可說同故可得說是異耳。說與不說，無二無別矣。

The treatise states: This is the fourth [part], revealing what is correct. Regarding 'one who clearly discerns the nature of mind,' this means that with one's own mind one clearly discerns the nature of one's own mind. As a sūtra says: 'If one can, by means of attention to grasping, furthermore fully penetrate attention to grasping, only then can the cognitive faculty and the cognitive object be completely equal, because undefiled cognition is generated and one fully penetrates the noble truths.' 'Knowing that the nature of mind is thus' means knowing that the nature of the substance of one's own contemplating mind is equal. 'This nature is also thus' refers to the functioning of cognitive capability, because the nature of its functioning is equal. In this way, the substance and function of the contemplating mind are equal, without arising or ceasing, without beginning or end; therefore it is said, 'this is unarisen practice.' The previous explanation of unarisenness in terms of the four negations revealed the principle of unarisenness, and this principle encompasses both ordinary beings and nobles. The present explanation of unarisenness through knowing thusness clarifies the practice of unarisenness, and this practice pertains distinctively to nobles. The practice abiding in nobles is of a single taste with the principle; the universally pervasive principle is equal to cognitive acuity. Because they are equal and of a single taste, the noble cannot make them different; because there is what is universal and what is distinct, the noble cannot make them identical. What cannot be made identical is precisely identical yet different; what cannot be made different is precisely different yet identical. Being identical distinguishes identity within difference; being different clarifies difference within identity. Clarifying difference within identity is not dividing the identical into the different; distinguishing identity within difference is not melting down the different into the identical. Truly, because identity is not the melting down of difference, it cannot be said to be identical; because difference is not the division of identity, it cannot be said to be different. It is solely because difference cannot be spoken of that it can be said to be identical, and solely because identity cannot be spoken of that it can be said to be different. Whether spoken of or not spoken of, there is no duality and no distinction.