金剛三昧經論 2.27

2.27

The treatise states: Below this is the second [section], the question-and-answer of cross-examination. Herein there are eight parts: first, adducing practice to challenge the principle; second, cross-examining regarding having realization; third, respectfully reporting the absence of realization; fourth, cross-examining regarding having attainment; fifth, respectfully reporting the absence of attainment; sixth, ratifying the absence of realization and attainment; seventh, further presenting doubts; eighth, resolving those doubts. This is the first, adducing practice to challenge the principle. Regarding 'If the mind is originally thus and unarisen with respect to practice,' this adduces the meaning of the unarisenness of practice explained previously, referring to the preceding statement: 'knowing that the nature of mind is thus, and this nature is also thus, is unarisen practice.' That is, being unarisen with respect to the practice of arising and ceasing directly adduces the characteristics of unarisen practice. Regarding 'all conditioned practices are unarisen,' this adduces the unarisenness of principle, meaning that the conditioned practices of the five aggregates of all sentient beings are fundamentally unarisen. Regarding 'arising practice does not arise,' this clarifies that the unarisenness of principle is different from the unarisenness of practice, meaning that arising practice is empty and does not arise, not that it does not arise due to realizing the principle and annihilating the mind. Regarding 'non-arising has no practice,' this reveals that the non-arising of principle is analogous to the unarisenness of practice, meaning that in the gate of non-arising there is also no mental practice. Like the forbearance of the unarisen, because there is no conceptualizing practice, should it not be unarisen practice? If so, then is there any ordinary being who would not realize and attain the forbearance of the unarisen?