仁王般若經疏 1.107

1.107

白佛言般若波羅蜜下，第三明智照。文問答為二。問云：波若為是有法、為是無法？若是有法，可辨照用；般若既非有，云何照用？非非法者，應云非有非無；但此經簡略，故直云非非法也。一非非有、二非非無，摩訶衍既非有無，云何辨照？此即舉體以難用。摩訶衍即般若也，故下文云「能運載名摩訶衍」。即滅為金剛，論其照用名般若，取其運載即是乘義，故《大智論》會此二名同為一也。大王下，第二答。文有六：第一約悟入以明法空。第二從但法集故有下，約出用隨俗以答。第三從善男子見法眾生下，舉非顯是。第四從大王是經名味句下，挌量顯勝。第五從大王見境見智下，結上舉非顯是。第六從善男子若有修習下，勸信受持，答上問護佛果義。就第一悟入中即為二別：初略答；二從法性下，別歷諸科廣答。初略。文云摩訶衍見非非法法若非非法是名非非法空。非非法者，非有非無也。法若是有，可如有而知；法若是無，可如無而照。以法非有非無，故聖照一切如虛空矣。今言見者，乃是無見之見，非是定性之見。法若非非法，舉法體空寂，去離有無，名為中道。若能知有無性離，中何所中？是名非非法空者，正明能觀所觀空，故生法師云：「非無有宗，宗之者無相。聖智非無有照，照之者無心。故以無心之智照無相之宗也，境智俱寂也。」

From "addressed the Buddha, saying: 'The prajñāpāramitā'" downward is the third part, which explains the illumination of wisdom. The text has two parts: question and answer. The question asks: Is prajñā an existent dharma or a nonexistent dharma? If it is an existent dharma, its illuminating function can be explained; since prajñā is not existent, how can it illuminate and function? As for "neither dharma nor non-dharma," it should say "neither existent nor nonexistent"; but this sūtra is concise, and thus directly says "neither dharma nor non-dharma." First, it is not non-existent; second, it is not non-nonexistent. Since the Mahāyāna is neither existent nor nonexistent, how can illumination be explained? This is to raise the essence in order to challenge its function. The Mahāyāna is indeed prajñā, hence the lower text says: "Being able to convey [beings] is called the Mahāyāna." It is cessation itself as the vajra; in terms of its illuminating function it is called prajñā; taking its conveying, that is the meaning of "vehicle"; therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa harmonizes these two names as one. From "Great King!" downward is the second part, the answer. The text has six sections: First, in terms of awakening and entering, it explains the emptiness of dharmas. Second, from "Only because of the aggregation of dharmas does existence occur" downward, it responds in terms of emerging into function in accord with the conventional. Third, from "Good sons! If one sees dharmas and sentient beings" downward, it raises the incorrect to reveal the correct. Fourth, from "Great King! If regarding the names, phrases, and syllables of this sūtra" downward, it evaluates and reveals the superiority. Fifth, from "Great King! If one sees the object, sees wisdom" downward, it concludes the above raising of the incorrect to reveal the correct. Sixth, from "Good sons! If anyone cultivates and practices" downward, it encourages faithful acceptance and upholding, answering the earlier question regarding the meaning of protecting the Buddha-fruit. Within the first section on awakening and entering, there are two distinct parts: first, a brief answer; second, from "The dharmatā..." downward, it answers extensively by going through the various categories individually. The first is the brief [answer]. The text says: "The Mahāyāna sees that it is neither dharma nor non-dharma. If dharmas are neither dharma nor non-dharma, this is called the emptiness of neither dharma nor non-dharma." "Neither dharma nor non-dharma" means neither existent nor nonexistent. If a dharma were existent, it could be known according to existence; if a dharma were nonexistent, it could be illuminated according to nonexistence. Because dharmas are neither existent nor nonexistent, the noble [wisdom] illuminates everything like open space. What is now called "seeing" is the seeing of non-seeing, not the seeing of an intrinsically fixed nature. "If dharmas are neither dharma nor non-dharma" raises the emptiness and quiescence of the essence of dharmas, which departs from existence and nonexistence, and is called the Middle Way. If one can know that existence and nonexistence are devoid of intrinsic nature, what can the Middle center upon? "This is called the emptiness of neither dharma nor non-dharma" directly explains the emptiness of that which contemplates and that which is contemplated. Therefore, Dharma Master Daosheng said: "It is not that there is no principle, but the one who holds to the principle is free of characteristics. Noble wisdom is not without illumination, but the one who illuminates is free of mind. Therefore, with mind-free wisdom one illuminates the characterless principle; object and wisdom are both quiescent."