金剛般若經旨贊 2.101

2.101

由住自取返疑無住。若說菩薩。都無所住而生其心。若爾則應一切無住。如何前云應如是住亦是降伏。既勸住伏非不住故。由自取故。雖修而不契真住。由生疑故復不修無住之道。今言顯彼疑取之心。令其微契無住之道。是故善現再興前日日雖以重所為立別。是故此文非二固說。無著約餘住障名離喜勸住處。天親就顯住疑應非無住疑。文下為二。初問後答。此初也。菩薩約前住心降伏為道。我能自取之心為復不起我能心耶。是故問言云何住等。

Due to abiding in self-grasping, one turns around and doubts non-abiding: if it is said that a bodhisattva gives rise to that mind without abiding in anything at all, then all should be non-abiding; why did it previously say, 'One should abide thus, and also subdue [the mind]'? Since it encouraged abiding and subduing, it is not non-abiding. Due to self-grasping, although cultivating, one does not tally with true abiding; due to giving rise to doubt, one again does not cultivate the path of non-abiding. Now these words reveal that mind of doubt and grasping, causing them to subtly tally with the path of non-abiding. Therefore, Subhūti raised again the previous [question], which, though repeated, establishes a distinct purport; hence, this text is not a redundant repetition. Asaṅga, in terms of remaining obstacles to abiding, names it the resting place of leaving joy and encouraging abiding; Vasubandhu, with regard to revealing doubts about abiding, calls it the doubt that [practice] should not be non-abiding. The text below has two parts: first the question, then the answer. This is the first. A bodhisattva takes the aforementioned abiding mind and subduing as the path; does the mind capable of self-grasping no longer give rise to the mind of 'I am capable'? Therefore, he asks, 'How should he abide...?' and so forth.