御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.156

2.156

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.