金剛般若論會釋 2.44

2.44

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.