御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.156

2.156

經。須菩提至為有我　演曰。第三簡異有三。初佛知無次凡執有後破凡愚。此初二也。言有我者。即是有我執。如來說為非執者。若實有我可有執取。我體既無故非實執。即是我無之執名為非執。而諸凡愚見道以前起分別見妄。謂為有橫生實執故。貞觀云善現我等執者。如來說為非執故名我等執。而諸愚夫強有此執。此論云。若實無我而言有我取為離此著故。經言須菩提我取者即為非取。如是等彼論偈言不取取應知故。此以何義。以彼不實義。是故彼不取。以不取者。即是毛道凡夫取而即是不取故言不取取故。演曰。無實可取名為不取。即當非執。又言取者凡愚取故二論意同。

Sūtra: [The Buddha asked,] "Subhūti, [...] that there is a self?" / Commentary: The third section, "Differentiating Differences," has three parts: first, the Buddha's knowledge that there is [no self]; next, ordinary beings' grasping at existence; and finally, refuting ordinary fools. This consists of the first two parts. When it says "that there is a self," this refers to the presence of ātmagrāha. When the Tathāgata speaks of it as "not grasping": if a self truly existed, there could be grasping; but since the substance of a self does not exist, it is not real grasping. That is, grasping where there is no self is called "not grasping." Yet ordinary fools, prior to the path of seeing, give rise to discriminative false views, claiming that it exists and arbitrarily generating real grasping. Therefore, the Zhenguan [translation] says: "Subhūti, what is grasped as a self and so forth is spoken of by the Tathāgata as non-grasping, and thus it is named 'grasping at a self and so forth.' Yet fools obstinately maintain this grasping." That treatise says: "If there were truly no self, yet one spoke of grasping a self, it is in order to be free from this attachment that the sūtra says: 'Subhūti, grasping at a self is no grasping.'" It is because of this that the verse in that treatise says: "'Non-grasping and grasping' should be understood." By what meaning is this? It is by the meaning of its being unreal. Therefore it is "non-grasping." As for "non-grasping": it is the grasping of ordinary beings of the hair-path, which is precisely non-grasping; hence it is said, "non-grasping and grasping." Commentary: Because there is no real [self] to be grasped, it is called "non-grasping"; this corresponds to "not grasping." Furthermore, saying "grasping" is because ordinary fools grasp at it. The intentions of the two treatises are the same.