金剛三昧經論 3.141

3.141

論曰：此是第四決〈本覺利品〉中起疑。彼言「無住菩薩言：『一切境空、一切身空、一切識空，覺亦應空。』佛言：『可一覺者，不毀不壞決定性，非空非不空、無空不空。』」依此述文，於彼生疑云：若是一心亦不是有故寂滅者，何故前說一覺不壞故不同彼色心之空？今乘是疑故作是問。是法非三諦者，即前頌說「是一心法非色心空故非三諦」。然三諦門略有三種：一者色諦、心諦、第一義諦；二者有諦、無諦、中道第一義諦；三者如此品中後文所說。今此問意且依初門。色空心亦滅者，是法既非三諦攝故，色相本空，心亦寂滅。是色心法本寂滅時，是一心法應同寂滅。即前偈言「心不有」故。是即前說不同空者，徒為虛談，如是疑也。頌中對此明其不同。法本無自性者，色心之法本無自性。由彼之所生者，由彼本覺之心所生。所生色心是差別相，彼本覺心離相離性。不於如是差別之處而有如彼離相一覺，是故空此色心差別相時不得同遣離相一覺。由是道理，前非虛說。

The commentary states: This is the fourth [section], resolving a doubt raised regarding the 'Chapter on the Benefit of Innate Awakening.' There it states: 'Apratiṣṭhita Bodhisattva said, "If all objects are empty, all bodies are empty, and all consciousnesses are empty, awakening should also be empty." The Buddha said, "That which can be single awakening is an indestructible, unruined determinate nature; it is neither empty nor nonempty, devoid of emptiness and non-emptiness."' Relying on this approving passage, a doubt is raised regarding it, saying: 'If the one mind is also not existent and therefore quiescent, why was it previously stated that the single awakening is indestructible and therefore not identical to the emptiness of those forms and minds?' Now, mounting this doubt, he poses this question. 'This dharma is not the three truths' refers to what the preceding verse stated: 'This one mental dharma is neither form nor mind, nor is it empty, and therefore it is not the three truths.' However, there are roughly three types of gateways of the three truths: first, the truth of form, the truth of mind, and the truth of ultimate meaning; second, the truth of existence, the truth of nonexistence, and the truth of ultimate meaning of the middle way; third, as stated in the later text of this chapter. Now, the meaning of this question provisionally relies on the first gateway. 'Form is empty and mind is also ceased' means that since this dharma is not subsumed under the three truths, the character of form is fundamentally empty, and mind is also quiescent. When these dharmas of form and mind are fundamentally quiescent, this one mental dharma should likewise be quiescent, because the preceding verse said that 'mind is not existent.' This means that the previous statement that it is not identical to emptiness would be mere vain talk—such is the doubt. In the verse, in response to this, he clarifies that they are not identical. 'Dharmas fundamentally have no intrinsic nature' means that the dharmas of form and mind fundamentally have no intrinsic nature. 'Are produced from that' means they are produced from that mind of innate awakening. The produced form and mind are differentiated characteristics, whereas that mind of innate awakening is free from characteristics and free from nature. Not in such a place of differentiation is there that characteristic-free single awakening like that; therefore, when emptying these differentiated characteristics of form and mind, one must not simultaneously dispel the characteristic-free single awakening. By this principle, what was previously stated was not in vain.