金剛般若論會釋 2.39

2.39

「及釋何以故」下文相有二，初、明相縛故生麁重縛，屬經「不住色」等，後逐難釋，此初意說若著色等諸有境相，即於流轉中便增疲乏，故菩提心不生。若為境相之所拘礙，心執有相故，於生死中身生麁重縛。麁重縛者，不安隱性，不調柔性，無堪任性，身心勞倦疲乏等性，故《深密經》頌言，「相縛縛眾生，亦由麁重縛，善雙修止觀，方乃俱解脫」，如觀戲調境相，拘心耽嗜不已，便生勞倦，後休息已，方覺疲乏，此相拘心生乏亦爾。此相縛者，體通一切三界、三性有漏境相所生麁重，亦通一切有漏之性，故說三界皆是行苦，不安隱性無堪任等。然由執心取境相故，諸有諸有漏境相皆拘心不得自在，非一切相皆執所執，此護法義。若依安慧，一切相皆所執取，故能拘心不得自在。或此文意，逐難釋中，由執色等以為實有，便起希求、追戀、慳惜，於流轉苦更增疲乏，覺心不生，復增生死，為遮此故，次經文說不住色生心等。如前為願淨土中文義中說，天親云，彼心不住佛菩提，非真住故勸不住。此論及真諦、羅什、《能斷》四本，並初應離一切相發心，次說「不應住色生心」等，後方說「應生無所住心，若心有住即為非住」等。然流支本便大相乖，於初住發心後，即說「何以故？若心有住即為非住」，方說「不應住色生心」等，應依四本為正。其流支本前願淨土中，自同四本，先說「不住色」等，後方說「應無所住而生其心」，故知彼經後文自倒。其羅什、流支皆唯說不住六塵，無不住非六塵。《能斷》之中，於六、非六，皆令不住。其真諦及此論，但有不住於前五塵，無不住非五塵，其法、非法中即出。故此論中不解不住於法，以可覺故。「不住非法」者，謂非法無我故，即顯不住法者不住法無我理中；「不應住非法」者，亦不住非是法無我理中，即顯有法我，故名為非法。亦令不住執法有我，於非法我及法我，二皆不住故。

The passage from "and explains: for what reason" onward has two parts: first, clarifying that because of the bond of marks, the bond of crude heaviness arises, which corresponds to the sūtra's [statement] "should not abide in form," and so forth; second, explaining sequentially according to difficulties raised. The first meaning says that if one is attached to external objective marks such as forms and the like, then amid transmigration one's exhaustion will only increase, and thus the bodhicitta will not arise. If one is restrained and obstructed by objective marks, because the mind grasps existent marks, within birth-and-death the bond of crude heaviness arises in the body. As for the bond of crude heaviness, its nature is to lack security, to lack pliancy, to lack competence, and to be weary and exhausted in body and mind. Therefore, a verse in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: "The bond of marks binds sentient beings, and likewise through the bond of crude heaviness; only when one skillfully cultivates calm and insight together will one then be liberated from both." Just as when watching a theatrical show, one's mind is held by the objective marks and indulges in them unceasingly, so that weariness arises, and only after resting does one perceive the exhaustion—the mind being held by these marks and giving rise to exhaustion is just like this. As for this bond of marks, its essence extends to the crude heaviness generated by the tainted objective marks of all three realms and three natures, and it also extends to the nature of all that is tainted; thus it is said that all three realms are the suffering of conditioned existence, lacking security, lacking competence, and so forth. However, because the grasping mind apprehends objective marks, all existing tainted objective marks hold the mind so that it does not attain mastery; it is not that all marks are what is grasped by grasping—this is Dharmapāla's view. If one relies on Sthiramati, all marks are grasped and apprehended, and therefore they can hold the mind so that it does not attain mastery. Alternatively, the meaning of this text, in the sequential explanation according to difficulties, is that through grasping form and so on as truly existent, one then gives rise to seeking, yearning, and stinginess, further increasing one's exhaustion amid the suffering of transmigration, so that the awakened mind does not arise and birth-and-death is further increased. To ward this off, the next sūtra passage says that one should not give rise to a mind abiding in form, and so forth. Just as was said earlier in the textual meaning regarding the vow for a pure land, Vasubandhu says that that mind does not abide in the Buddha's awakening; because it is not a true abiding, he admonishes them not to abide. In this treatise, as well as in Paramārtha's, Kumārajīva's, and the Vajracchedikā—all four editions—first one should give rise to the mind detached from all marks, next it says "one should not give rise to a mind abiding in form," and so forth, and only afterward does it say "one should give rise to a mind that has no abiding; if the mind has an abiding, it is not an abiding," and so on. However, Bodhiruci's edition differs greatly: right after the initial abiding and generating the mind, it says: "For what reason? If the mind has an abiding, it is not an abiding," and only then says "one should not give rise to a mind abiding in form," and so on. One should rely on the four editions as correct. In Bodhiruci's edition earlier, within the vow for a pure land, it agrees of itself with the four editions, first saying "not abiding in form," and so on, and only afterward saying "one should produce the mind without anywhere abiding." Therefore we know that the later text of that sūtra is inverted of itself. Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci both speak only of not abiding in the six dusts, and do not speak of not abiding in what is not the six dusts. In the Vajracchedikā, regarding both the six and non-six, it causes one not to abide in either. Paramārtha and this treatise only have not abiding in the former five dusts, and do not have not abiding in what is not the five dusts; they emerge in "phenomena" and "non-phenomena." Therefore in this treatise it does not explain not abiding in phenomena, because it can be realized. "Not abiding in non-phenomena" means not abiding in non-phenomena because of the selflessness of phenomena; that is, it reveals that one who does not abide in phenomena does not abide in the principle of the selflessness of phenomena. "Should not abide in non-phenomena" also means not abiding in what is not the principle of the selflessness of phenomena; that is, it reveals that having a self in phenomena is called non-phenomena. It also causes one not to abide in grasping phenomena as having a self, because one abides neither in the non-phenomenal self nor in the phenomenal self.