金剛三昧經論 2.27

2.27

論曰：此下第二反詰問答。於中有八：一舉行難理、二反詰有證、三仰報無證、四反詰有得、五仰報無得、六述無證得、七更陳所疑、八決其所疑。此即第一舉行難理。言心若本如無生於行者，舉前所說行無生義，謂即前言知心性如是性亦如是無生行。謂無生於生滅之行，即是正舉無生行相。言諸行無生者，舉理無生，謂諸眾生五陰諸行本來無生。生行不生者，明理無生異行無生，謂生起行即空不生，非由證理滅心不生。言不生無行者，顯理不生類行無生，謂不生門亦無心行。如無生忍，無分別行故，應即是無生行耶？若如是者，一切凡夫莫不證得無生忍矣。

The treatise states: Below this is the second [section], the question-and-answer of cross-examination. Herein there are eight parts: first, adducing practice to challenge the principle; second, cross-examining regarding having realization; third, respectfully reporting the absence of realization; fourth, cross-examining regarding having attainment; fifth, respectfully reporting the absence of attainment; sixth, ratifying the absence of realization and attainment; seventh, further presenting doubts; eighth, resolving those doubts. This is the first, adducing practice to challenge the principle. Regarding 'If the mind is originally thus and unarisen with respect to practice,' this adduces the meaning of the unarisenness of practice explained previously, referring to the preceding statement: 'knowing that the nature of mind is thus, and this nature is also thus, is unarisen practice.' That is, being unarisen with respect to the practice of arising and ceasing directly adduces the characteristics of unarisen practice. Regarding 'all conditioned practices are unarisen,' this adduces the unarisenness of principle, meaning that the conditioned practices of the five aggregates of all sentient beings are fundamentally unarisen. Regarding 'arising practice does not arise,' this clarifies that the unarisenness of principle is different from the unarisenness of practice, meaning that arising practice is empty and does not arise, not that it does not arise due to realizing the principle and annihilating the mind. Regarding 'non-arising has no practice,' this reveals that the non-arising of principle is analogous to the unarisenness of practice, meaning that in the gate of non-arising there is also no mental practice. Like the forbearance of the unarisen, because there is no conceptualizing practice, should it not be unarisen practice? If so, then is there any ordinary being who would not realize and attain the forbearance of the unarisen?