金剛三昧經論 3.143

3.143

論曰：此是第五決〈無生行品〉中起疑。彼言「緣起非生、緣謝非滅，在無有處不見所住，決定性故。是決定性不一不異。」有依彼文而起疑云：色心等法無生無滅，即是平等決定實性，是即橫無色心之差、縱無生滅之別。無差無別，應是一味。不異可爾，云何不一？頌中對此顯不一義。法住處無在者，諸法之住及所住處皆無所有故。相數空故無者，色心等相、一異等數悉空故無也。相數既無，那得有一？又無色故即無心相，既非異者，如何是一？而有名說之二及有所說法者，是即能取妄心所取，非如實義有一二等。言名說者，名是詮用，意識所取。說是語聲，耳識所了。若言是一，即有此二，於中亦有所詮之法。如是等數妄心所取，非彼實義。有如是數，云何於中存一味耶？

The commentary states: This is the fifth [section], resolving a doubt raised regarding the 'Chapter on Unarisen Practice.' There it states: 'Dependent origination is non-arising, and the fading of conditions is non-ceasing; in a place where there is nothing, no abiding is seen, because of the determinate nature. This determinate nature is neither one nor different.' Someone, relying on that passage, raises a doubt, saying: 'Dharmas such as form and mind are without arising and without ceasing; that is, they are the equal, determinate real nature. That is to say, horizontally there is no difference between form and mind, and vertically there is no distinction between arising and ceasing. Free from difference and free from distinction, they should be of a single taste. Non-difference is acceptable, but how can they not be one?' In the verse, in response to this, he reveals the meaning of their not being one. 'The place where dharmas abide is nowhere present' means that the abiding of dharmas and the place where they abide are both completely nonexistent. 'Because characteristics and numbers are empty, they are nonexistent' means that characteristics such as form and mind, and numbers such as oneness and difference, are all empty and therefore nonexistent. Since characteristics and numbers are already nonexistent, how could there be 'one'? Furthermore, because there is no form, there is no characteristic of mind; since it is not different, how could it be one? Yet there are the two of name and utterance, as well as the dharmas that are uttered: these are precisely what is grasped by the grasping deluded mind; it is not that in the real meaning there is one, two, and so forth. Regarding 'name and utterance': name is the expressive function, grasped by the mental consciousness; utterance is vocal sound, discerned by the ear consciousness. If one says they are one, there are already these two, and therein there is also the dharma that is expressed. Numbers such as these are grasped by the deluded mind, not that real meaning. Since there are such numbers, how could one maintain a single taste therein?