金剛三昧經論 2.83

2.83

論曰：此下三番明不異相。於中前二番明覺與境同相，後一問答顯覺與識同相。初中前番明境同覺，謂諸妄境本來不有。既無其有，何有空相？既非有空，何得無空？故言非空相非無空相，以此而言則不異覺。答中言性本決定者，明本不有故非空相。無有處所者，明非有空故非無空也。後番問答明覺同境。覺亦如是者，覺亦緣生，本性空故。答中言清淨無覺者，覺空之理離一切相，故曰清淨。覺性既空，空中無覺，如色空中無色相故。前明境同覺者，以境非空非不空義同於前覺非空非不空義；今明覺同境者，以覺性空無相之理同於境空無相之義。二文不同，應如是知。

The commentary says: From here on are three rounds clarifying the non-different character. Within this, the first two rounds clarify that awakening and objects have the same character, while the latter question and answer reveals that awakening and consciousness have the same character.
In the former, the first round clarifies that objects are identical to awakening. This means that the various deluded objects originally do not exist. Since their existence does not exist, how could there be a characteristic of emptiness? Since they are neither existent nor empty, how could there be non-emptiness? Therefore it says, 'they are neither of the characteristic of emptiness nor of the characteristic of non-emptiness.' In this respect, they are not different from awakening. In the answer, 'the nature is originally determinate' clarifies that because they originally do not exist, they are not of the characteristic of emptiness. 'Has no location' clarifies that because they are not existent emptiness, they are not non-empty.
The latter round of question and answer clarifies that awakening is identical to objects. 'Awakening is also like this' means that awakening is also conditionally arisen, because its fundamental nature is empty. In the answer, 'being pure, there is no awakening' means that the principle of the emptiness of awakening is free from all characteristics; hence it is called 'pure.' Since the nature of awakening is empty, within emptiness there is no awakening, just as within the emptiness of form there is no characteristic of form. The earlier clarification of objects being identical to awakening was because the meaning of objects being neither empty nor non-empty is identical to the earlier meaning of awakening being neither empty nor non-empty; the present clarification of awakening being identical to objects is because the principle of the empty and signless nature of awakening is identical to the meaning of the empty and signless nature of objects. The two passages are different, and should be understood in this way.