金剛三昧經論 2.31

2.31

The treatise states: This is the third, respectfully replying with the absence of realization. Herein there are three parts: first, clarifying the absence of realization; second, adducing what is wrong; third, revealing what is correct. In the first part there are also two: first, proposing; then, explaining. 'The nature and characteristics of unarisen practice are empty and tranquil' is the general proposition. 'Nature is empty and tranquil' means that the substance and nature of the contemplating mind are free from the characteristics of arising and ceasing, which is what was spoken of earlier as 'knowing that the nature of mind is thus.' 'Characteristics are empty and tranquil' means that the cognitive function of the contemplating mind and the characteristics of its function are also thus, which is the meaning of the earlier 'this nature is also thus.' Below, through ten absences, this general statement is explained. 'Without seeing and without hearing' means that the mind-nature is subtle and silent. Because it is silent, it transcends visible form and cannot be represented by images; because it is subtle, it transcends sound and cannot be interpreted by teachings. 'Without gain and without loss' reveals emptiness without anything to be gained, and expels arising without anything to be lost. These four absences explain that the nature is empty and tranquil. 'Without words and without explanations' means that since mental practice is tranquil, it does not give rise to words and explanations. 'Without knowing and without characteristics' means that mental practice is extinguished and tranquil, far removed from the two divisions. 'Without grasping and without abandoning' means that since there is no conceptualization, there is no nature that can be grasped and no characteristic that can be abandoned. These six absences explain that characteristics are empty and tranquil. Since within unarisen practice it is empty and tranquil in this way, how could there be any grasping at realization therein? In making this reply, he himself understands that the previous challenge does not constitute a valid challenge. Adducing what is wrong and revealing what is correct can be understood simply by examination.