金剛三昧經論 2.81

2.81

論曰：此下第三番明覺不覺之不同相。問意言：覺亦應空者，從緣生識既空，從緣起覺亦空。識既空故，其見是妄；覺亦空故，其覺亦妄也。佛答意言：一切覺者，不壞道理故非可空，不存自性亦非不空，是故覺中無空不空。諸識不爾，妄取諸法違反真理，可空可遣。如是不同，何得相類也。決定性者，謂真如性不可破壞，性自爾故。言不毀者，不取有相，以傷空故。言不壞者，不計無性，以損真故。謂不毀壞於決定性也。

The commentary says: From here on is the third round, clarifying the dissimilar character of awakening and non-awakening. The meaning of the question says: In saying 'awakening should also be empty,' since consciousness arising from conditions is empty, awakening arising from conditions should also be empty. Since consciousness is empty, its seeing is delusion; since awakening is also empty, its awakening should also be delusion.
The meaning of the Buddha's answer says: All awakening does not ruin the principle, and therefore cannot be empty; it does not maintain an intrinsic nature, and therefore is not non-empty either. For this reason, within awakening there is neither emptiness nor non-emptiness. The various consciousnesses are not like this: they deludedly grasp at phenomena and run counter to the true principle, so they can be emptied and dispelled. Being different in this way, how can they be compared with each other?
'Determinate nature' refers to the nature of thusness, which cannot be destroyed because its nature is naturally so. 'Not destroyed' means not grasping at the characteristic of existence, so as not to damage emptiness. 'Not ruined' means not conceiving a lack of nature, so as not to impair truth. This means that the determinate nature is neither destroyed nor ruined.