仁王般若經疏 2.116

2.116

有無本自二下，第二有三偈，就一異約情解以辨二諦不二。初偈略明一二，第二偈解釋，第三偈結歎。初偈為二：上半約二情明二諦，下半約觀解明不二。上半初句法說，次句譬說。有無本自二者，有即非無，無即非有，故言本自二。何以得知有無？下句譬云如似牛二角。二角相別，似於有無義不相即，同在一頭似有無體一。照解見不二下，下半約觀解。佛菩薩心內達照諸法畢竟清淨，何曾二不二？為對於二，故云照解見不二。有人云：見不二即是一。此是一異之見，豈是照解？二諦常不即者，還約二情，故云不即。第二偈約達解之心以釋前偈於緣見一二。解心見不二者，釋前偈上句。前即於緣見有無，今辨了悟此有無之二。於解即不二，求二不可得者，釋第二句譬說。但迷故說二，譬之二角。變迷成解，此二本來不二，求二畢竟無從，故云不可得。非謂二諦一者，釋前下半初句照解見無二。本對二說無二，其二既無，豈得存一？故云非謂二諦一。以此而推無二，豈得還同一見？非二何可得者，一既不可得，何況二耶？第三行結歎。上半結前。於解常自一者，結前解心見不二。此一對二說，一莫作一解。於諦常自二者，結前有無本自二。又解：於解常自一者，二諦體一。於諦常自二者，結其義異。通達此無二者，下半歎益，明內外並[穴/(俱-≡+＝)]、有無雙寂，無依無得平等清淨，故云通達此無二真入第一義。

From "Existence and non-existence are originally two" downward is the second part consisting of three verses, which distinguishes the non-duality of the two truths with respect to oneness and difference and based on ordinary understanding. The first verse briefly clarifies oneness and duality; the second verse explains them; the third verse concludes with praise. The first verse has two parts: the upper half clarifies the two truths based on the two ordinary dispositions; the lower half clarifies non-duality based on contemplative understanding. The first line of the upper half is an exposition of the doctrine; the next line is an exposition by metaphor. "Existence and non-existence are originally two": existence is precisely not non-existence, and non-existence is precisely not existence; hence it says they are "originally two." How is existence and non-existence known? The lower line uses a metaphor, saying they are like the two horns of an ox. The two horns are distinct from one another, resembling the fact that the meanings of existence and non-existence are not mutually identical; being on the same head, they resemble the oneness of the substance of existence and non-existence. From "Illumined understanding sees non-duality" downward, the lower half is based on contemplative understanding. In the minds of Buddhas and bodhisattvas, they inwardly realize and illuminate that all phenomena are ultimately pure; when were they ever dual or non-dual? In contrast to duality, it is said that "illumined understanding sees non-duality." Someone says: seeing non-duality is precisely oneness. This is a view of oneness and difference; how could it be illumined understanding? "The two truths are ever not identical" is also said with respect to the two ordinary dispositions; hence it says they are "not identical." The second verse explains the preceding verse's seeing oneness and duality in relation to objects, based on the mind of penetrating understanding. "When the understanding mind sees non-duality" explains the upper line of the preceding verse. The former referred to seeing existence and non-existence in relation to objects; now it distinguishes the complete awakening to this duality of existence and non-existence. In understanding, it is non-dual. "Seeking duality, it cannot be found" explains the metaphor in the second line. It is only because of delusion that duality is spoken of, compared to two horns. When delusion is transformed into understanding, these two are originally non-dual; seeking duality is ultimately without recourse, hence it says "it cannot be found." "It is not that the two truths are one" explains the first line of the preceding lower half, "illumined understanding sees non-duality." Originally, non-duality was spoken of in contrast to duality; since duality is absent, how could oneness be maintained? Hence it says "it is not that the two truths are one." Inferring non-duality from this, how could it still be identical with a view [of oneness]? "Yet if not two, how could [one] be found?": since oneness cannot be found, how much less duality? The third verse concludes with praise. The upper half concludes the preceding. "In understanding, it is ever naturally one" concludes the preceding "when the understanding mind sees non-duality." This oneness is spoken of in contrast to duality; do not interpret it as [ordinary] oneness. "In truth, it is ever naturally two" concludes the preceding "existence and non-existence are originally two." Another explanation: "In understanding, it is ever naturally one" means that the two truths are one in substance. "In truth, it is ever naturally two" concludes their difference in meaning. "One who penetrates this non-duality": the lower half praises the benefit, clarifying that internal and external are both exhausted, existence and non-existence are both quiescent, without reliance and without attainment, equal and pure; hence it says "one who penetrates this non-duality truly enters the ultimate truth."