仁王般若經疏 1.103

1.103

大王下，第二答。文有五別：初約悟入以答，若就諸佛菩薩心，本無所化及能化；二約出用，隨世諦故，有可化眾生耳；三還結歸悟入；四明邪正二見皆名為見；五結，若能隨俗名字見，實無所見，名正見也。第一就悟入答者，文言法性即色受想行識。問：何故就法性以答？眾生無始來著有情深，故佛舉性空以答。法性者，第一義空之異名也。就此文有二：初約法明不住；何以故下，釋不住義是正見。初約五陰四德俱離名言、同絕四句，顯不住行。言不住色者，知色空不住；不但不住色，非色亦不住，亦色亦空亦不住；不但不住亦色亦空，亦不住非色非空。言語道斷、心行處滅，故言不住非不住。又言不住非非色者，既言色非色俱不可得住，豈況非非色當有住也。

From "Great King" onward is the second part, the answer. The text has five distinct sections: first, answering in terms of awakening and entry: if one takes the mind of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, fundamentally there is neither transformed nor transformer; second, in terms of functioning forth: by according with saṃvṛti-satya, there are only conventionally sentient beings who can be transformed; third, returning to conclude with awakening and entry; fourth, clarifying that both wrong and correct views are called views; fifth, concluding that if one can see according to worldly designations, there is really nothing seen, which is called right view. In the first section, answering in terms of awakening and entry, the text says dharmatā is precisely rūpa, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, and vijñāna. Question: Why answer in terms of dharmatā? Sentient beings from beginningless time have clung deeply to emotional attachment to existence, therefore the Buddha raised intrinsic emptiness to answer. Dharmatā is another name for paramārtha-śūnyatā. In this text there are two parts: first, clarifying non-abiding in terms of phenomena; from "Why is this?" onward, explaining that the meaning of non-abiding is right view. First, in terms of the five skandhas and four virtues being completely free from names and speech, and equally transcending the four propositions, he reveals the practice of non-abiding. As for saying "does not abide in rūpa," knowing that rūpa is empty, one does not abide; not only does one not abide in rūpa, one also does not abide in non-rūpa, and one also does not abide in both rūpa and emptiness; not only does one not abide in both rūpa and emptiness, one also does not abide in neither rūpa nor emptiness. The path of speech is cut off, and the place of mental activity is extinguished, therefore he says "neither abides nor does not abide." Furthermore, saying "does not abide in not non-rūpa": since he has already said that neither rūpa nor non-rūpa can be abided in, how could there possibly be abiding in not non-rūpa?