金剛三昧經論 2.97

2.97

論曰：是答正遣有住之執。於中有二：初略破執、後廣顯理。初中言常住涅槃是涅槃縛者，設有常覺住於涅槃，即是執著縛於涅槃，云何常住是解脫耶？何以故下，廣顯道理。理無住故，有住違理，違理之心非縛是何？釋意如是。於中有二：先約本覺以明無住、後約始覺以顯無住。初中約無異義以明無得無住。此無異義有其四種：一者本理無異，如經「涅槃本覺利，利本涅槃」故，是明涅槃是本覺利，此本覺利是本涅槃。其始覺者即同本覺，所以無異，故無得也。二者覺分無異，如經「涅槃覺分即本覺分」，是明涅槃眾德即是本覺之德。無異無得，如前說也。三者一味無異，如經「覺性不異、涅槃無異」，是明覺性一味無差別相，即是涅槃之無差別。四者無二無異，如經「覺本無生、涅槃無生，覺本無滅、涅槃無滅」，是明本覺本無生滅，即是涅槃之無生滅。由是四種無異道理本無異故，無得涅槃，是明無能得涅槃覺。次言涅槃無得者，是明涅槃無所得義。既無能得所得，何有能住所住？以之故言「云何有住」，即顯常住不應道理。次約始覺以明無住，先標、後釋。言覺者者，謂始覺者。釋中言覺本無生者，覺知生死本來無生，所以離著生死之垢也。言覺本無寂者，覺知涅槃本無寂靜，所以離入涅槃之動。心無所住者，不住生死及涅槃故。無有出入者，不見俗有及真空故。入唵摩羅者，一心之體離二邊故，歸此心源故名為入。如是無住方得解脫，故住涅槃不離縛也。

The treatise states: This answer directly eliminates the attachment to abiding. Herein there are two parts: first, briefly refuting the attachment; second, broadly elucidating the principle. In the first part, stating that 'abiding constantly in nirvāṇa is the bondage of nirvāṇa' means: supposing there were a constant awakening that abides in nirvāṇa, that would be an attachment bound to nirvāṇa; how could constant abiding be liberation? From 'For what reason?' downward, the principle is broadly elucidated. Because the principle has no abiding, to have an abiding contravenes the principle; what else could a mind that contravenes the principle be but bondage? Such is the intended explanation. Herein there are two parts: first, clarifying non-abiding in terms of innate awakening; second, revealing non-abiding in terms of initial awakening. In the first part, non-attainment and non-abiding are clarified in terms of the meaning of non-differentiation. This meaning of non-differentiation has four aspects: First is non-differentiation in original principle: as the sūtra states, 'nirvāṇa is the original benefit of awakening, and this benefit is originally nirvāṇa'; this clarifies that nirvāṇa is the benefit of innate awakening, and this benefit of innate awakening is original nirvāṇa. Initial awakening is identical with innate awakening, and because they are not different, there is no attainment. Second is non-differentiation in the factors of awakening: as the sūtra states, 'the factors of awakening of nirvāṇa are precisely the factors of innate awakening'; this clarifies that the manifold virtues of nirvāṇa are precisely the virtues of innate awakening. Being non-different and having no attainment are as explained before. Third is non-differentiation in single taste: as the sūtra states, 'the nature of awakening is not different, and nirvāṇa is not different'; this clarifies that the nature of awakening is of a single taste without distinguishing marks, which is precisely the non-differentiation of nirvāṇa. Fourth is non-differentiation in non-duality: as the sūtra states, 'awakening is fundamentally unarisen, and nirvāṇa is unarisen; awakening is fundamentally unceasing, and nirvāṇa is unceasing'; this clarifies that innate awakening is fundamentally without arising or ceasing, which is precisely the absence of arising and ceasing of nirvāṇa. Since the principle of these four kinds of non-differentiation is fundamentally non-different, there is no attainment of nirvāṇa; this clarifies that there is no awakening that can attain nirvāṇa. Next, stating 'nirvāṇa has nothing to be attained' clarifies the meaning that nirvāṇa is that which cannot be attained. Since there is neither an attainer nor that which is attained, how could there be an abider or that which is abided in? Therefore, saying 'how could there be abiding?' reveals that constant abiding does not accord with the principle. Next, clarifying non-abiding in terms of initial awakening consists of first presenting the point and then explaining it. Stating 'an awakened one' refers to one of initial awakening. In the explanation, stating 'awakening is fundamentally unarisen' means awakening to the fact that saṃsāra is fundamentally unarisen, and thereby abandoning the defilement of attachment to saṃsāra. Stating 'awakening is fundamentally without quiescence' means awakening to the fact that nirvāṇa is fundamentally without quiescence, and thereby abandoning the agitation of entering into nirvāṇa. 'The mind abides nowhere' because it abides neither in saṃsāra nor in nirvāṇa. 'There is no exiting or entering' because it perceives neither conventional existence nor true emptiness. 'Entering the amala' means that because the substance of the one mind is free from the two extremes, returning to this source of the mind is called 'entering'. It is only through such non-abiding that liberation is attained; therefore, abiding in nirvāṇa is not separate from bondage.