金剛三昧經論 3.145

3.145

論曰：此是第六決〈無相法品〉中起疑。彼言「云何生滅慮知相？佛言：『理無可不。若有可不即生諸念，千思萬慮是生滅相。』」今依後說還疑彼文。若識能生可不之境，境相還生諸念之識，即是心識有生有滅，云何而言不住二岸？若諸心識無生無滅，云何諸識能生境界？乘如是疑，發如是問。不住二岸者，無生無滅故。不住中流者，而不是一故。心識既爾無生無滅，云何可不境界從識之所生耶？若識能生境、識亦從境生，云何無生識能生有所生？為遣此疑，故說三頌。三頌之文即判為二：初之一頌示其道理、後之二頌破相生執。初中言是二能所緣者，謂汝所計識是能生、境是所生，直是妄取。能緣所緣俱是本來但名無自，若取為有，如取空華及取幻象以為實有，是故不異無生無滅。破中言識生於未時境不是時生者，明識能生未有之時，所生境界于時不生也。於境生未時是時識亦滅者，明境能生未有之時，其所生識于時亦滅。滅者寂滅，謂本來無也。彼即本俱無亦不有無有者，彼二能生本來俱無，既無能生亦不令有故曰不有，不令有故後時無生故言無有也。無生識亦無者，既無生義，何得有識？識無有故，境不從有。此中即有二種比量：一、識不生，無能生故，如望燋種。二、境不起，無所從故，如從龜毛。上來六分別決疑竟。

The commentary states: This is the sixth [section], resolving a doubt raised regarding the 'Chapter on Signless Dharmas.' There it states: 'What are the characteristics of arising, ceasing, deliberation, and cognition? The Buddha said, "In principle there is no affirming or negating. If there is affirming or negating, all thoughts arise; the thousands of thoughts and myriad deliberations are the characteristics of arising and ceasing."' Now, relying on the later statement, he turns back to doubt that passage: 'If consciousness can produce the objects of affirmation and negation, and the characteristics of objects in turn produce the consciousness of various thoughts, then mind and consciousness have arising and ceasing; how can one say they do not abide on the two shores? If all minds and consciousnesses are without arising and without ceasing, how can consciousnesses produce objective realms?' Mounting such a doubt, he raises such a question. 'Do not abide on the two shores' means because they are without arising and without ceasing. 'Nor do they abide in midstream' means because they are not one. Since mind and consciousness are thus without arising and without ceasing, how can the objective realms of affirmation and negation be produced from consciousness? If consciousness can produce objects, and consciousness is also produced from objects, how can an unarisen consciousness produce that which is produced? To dispel this doubt, three verses are spoken. The text of the three verses is divided into two: the first verse indicates the principle; the latter two verses refute the clinging to mutual production. In the first [verse], 'these two are the grasper and grasped conditions' means that what you posit—that consciousness is what produces and the object is what is produced—is simply deluded grasping. The grasping condition and the grasped condition are both fundamentally mere names without selfhood; if one grasps them as existent, it is like grasping flowers in the sky and grasping phantom illusions as truly existent; therefore, it is not different from non-arising and non-ceasing. In the refutation, 'at the time when consciousness has not yet arisen, the objective realm is not produced at that time' explains that at the time when consciousness, the producer, does not yet exist, the produced objective realm is not produced at that time. 'At the time when the objective realm has not yet arisen, at that time consciousness is also ceased' explains that at the time when the objective realm, the producer, does not yet exist, the produced consciousness is at that time also ceased. 'Ceased' means quiescently ceased; that is, fundamentally nonexistent. 'They are fundamentally both nonexistent, and they neither make exist nor have existence' means that the two producers are fundamentally both nonexistent; since there is no producer, it also does not cause existence—hence called 'does not make exist'—and because it does not cause existence, in a later time there is no arising—hence called 'does not have existence.' 'Unarisen consciousness is also nonexistent' means that since there is no sense of arising, how could there be consciousness? Because consciousness is nonexistent, the objective realm does not come to exist from it. Herein there are two inferences: first, consciousness does not arise, because it lacks a producer, like looking toward a scorched seed; second, the objective realm does not occur, because it has nothing from which to come, like [a garment made] from tortoise hair. The resolution of doubts through the six distinctions above is concluded.