金剛般若論會釋 2.44

2.44

對治第三乏受用苦因緣中有二，初、牒經屬，後、別釋文。由著未來果事行施，心有相故，果有限量，受用便乏，即執著等是乏受用因緣，所乏受用是外資具增上果故。此依此論所解不住於事行施，是布施度未來果說。又依天親，自體名事。此中說是乏受用故，若不住施，心無相故，果無限量，受用無乏，受用無乏即是外具，增上果攝。無相施心是彼因緣能治，執著所受，資具乏因緣，故為說此行，對治彼因，故有下經。天親云，復有疑，若聖人以真如無為得名，真如三世一切時有，三界一切處有，云何不住心得佛菩提？有得則非不住性故。既說一切時處實有，何故有得、有不得者？為破此疑，故有下文。偈言，「時及處實有，而不得真如，無智以住法，餘者有智得」，義雖時、處有，以無智故，乃住法故，不得真如，答後問也；若有智心及不住法後得真如，答初問也，及答後問。亦有得者，以諸佛清淨真如得名故，無智有住，既不得如，當果有限，便乏受用；有智無住便得真如，當果無窮，受用無乏。彼因疑以生下，此明行以起後，已觀雖異，正與此同。

Within the section on the antidote to the third [cause], the causal condition of the suffering of lacking necessities for use, there are two parts: first, citing the sūtra text to match its classification, and second, explaining the text in detail. Due to clinging to future fruitional states when practicing giving, because the mind possesses signs, the fruit is limited, and one consequently lacks necessities for use; thus, clinging and so forth are the causal conditions for lacking necessities for use, because the lacked necessities for use are the dominant fruit consisting of external provisions. This is explained according to this treatise: practicing giving without abiding in things refers to the future fruition of the perfection of giving. Furthermore, according to Vasubandhu, 'thing' refers to intrinsic nature. Here it speaks of lacking necessities for use; hence, if one gives without abiding, because the mind is signless, the fruit is limitless, and there is no lack of necessities for use. No lack of necessities for use is precisely external provisions, subsumed under the dominant fruit. The signless mind of giving is the antidote to those causal conditions; it remedies the causal condition of lacking provisions that is experienced through clinging. Therefore this practice is taught to counteract that cause; hence the subsequent sūtra text occurs. Vasubandhu states: There is a further doubt: If noble ones derive their designation from the unconditioned nature of suchness, and suchness exists at all times throughout the three periods, and exists everywhere throughout the three realms, how is it that a non-abiding mind attains the Buddha's bodhi? If there is attainment, it would not have a non-abiding nature. Since it is said to exist truly at all times and places, why are there those who attain it and those who do not? To dispel this doubt, the subsequent text occurs. The verse states: 'Although it truly exists in time and space, one does not attain suchness; lacking wisdom, one abides in phenomena; the others who have wisdom attain it.' The meaning is that although it exists in time and space, lacking wisdom, one consequently abides in phenomena and fails to attain suchness—this answers the latter question. If one possesses a mind of wisdom and does not abide in phenomena, one subsequently attains suchness—this answers the first question, as well as the latter question. There are also those who attain it because all Buddhas derive their designation from pure suchness. Without wisdom and with abiding, failing to attain suchness, the future fruit is limited, and one consequently lacks necessities for use; with wisdom and without abiding, one straightaway attains suchness, the future fruit is inexhaustible, and there is no lack of necessities for use. That text generates what follows based on a doubt, while this text clarifies the practice to initiate what comes after; although their viewpoints differ, their essence is precisely the same.