仁王般若經疏 2.122

2.122

五眼下，第二偏就果地以明能見所見不二。文言見無所見者，此見是無見之見，言無所見者，諸法本來清淨，何所見耶？而言見者，隨俗故無過。《法華》明佛眼見六道眾生，《大品》明五眼不見眾生，《法華》即無見之見，《大品》即見之無見。此經舉所見之非無，以顯能見非有。行亦不受者，《大品》無受三昧具有五句，此中正有四句，若將乃至一切亦不受，即是第五句。行亦不受者，《大智論》云「行亦不受者，治其有見。不行亦不受者，除其無見。」說無為治有，非謂有此無；說有以除無，非謂有此有。談無未曾無、說有未曾有，對治因緣故有此說。欲使兩見之徒俱詣正觀、夷有無、均生滅、亡道俗、泯二際，故云行不行等皆不受。亦不受有亦不同無，無二過故。非行非不行者，有因尚不得，何況無因。一切法亦不受者，依《大智論》即是不受亦不受也。菩薩未成佛下，第三雙結因果不二。文言菩薩未成佛時以菩提為煩惱者，譬如結巾為㝹，解者見巾，妄者見㝹。亦如病者食甜為苦，病差以向苦為甜，更無別異法。由妄故見不生死為生死，煩惱亦爾。迷故菩提即是煩惱，悟之煩惱即是菩提，迷故則四方易位，悟也則廓爾無遺。何以故下，釋上煩惱即菩提。於第一義而不二者，煩惱與菩提同無所有，云不二。諸佛乃至一切法皆絕心行，故稱為如。第一問答竟。

From "The five eyes" onward, the second [section] specifically addresses the fruition stage to explain that what can see and what is seen are non-dual. The text says, "Seeing is non-seeing": this seeing is the seeing of non-seeing. When it says "non-seeing," since all phenomena are originally pure, what could be seen? Yet when it speaks of "seeing," it accords with convention and is therefore without fault. The *Lotus Sūtra* explains that the Buddha-eye sees sentient beings of the six destinies; the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* explains that the five eyes do not see sentient beings. The *Lotus Sūtra* is the seeing of non-seeing; the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* is the non-seeing of seeing. This sūtra brings forth the non-absence of what is seen to reveal the non-existence of what can see. In "Action also is not accepted": the samādhi of non-acceptance in the *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* fully has five propositions; here there are precisely four propositions, and if one includes "up to all [phenomena] also are not accepted," that is the fifth proposition. In "Action also is not accepted," the *Dazhidulun* says: "'Action also is not accepted' cures the view of existence. 'Non-action also is not accepted' eliminates the view of non-existence." Speaking of non-existence is to cure existence, not to mean that there is this non-existence; speaking of existence is to eliminate non-existence, not to mean that there is this existence. Speaking of non-existence has never been non-existence; speaking of existence has never been existence. Because of causes and conditions of antidotes, there is this teaching. Wishing to cause adherents of both views to reach the correct contemplation together, to level existence and non-existence, equalize arising and ceasing, dissolve the supramundane and conventional, and obliterate the two extremes, it therefore says that action, non-action, and so forth are all not accepted. One neither accepts existence nor identifies with non-existence, being free from both faults. In "Neither action nor non-action": when an existent cause cannot even be grasped, how much less an uncaused one? In "All phenomena also are not accepted": according to the *Dazhidulun*, this means that not accepting is also not accepted. From "When a bodhisattva has not yet attained Buddhahood" onward, the third [section] jointly concludes that cause and fruition are non-dual. The text says: "When a bodhisattva has not yet attained Buddhahood, they take bodhi to be defilement": this is like tying a cloth into a rabbit; one who understands sees a cloth, while one who is deluded sees a rabbit. It is also like a sick person tasting sweetness as bitter; when the illness is cured, they taste what was formerly bitter as sweet, without there being any distinct phenomenon. Due to delusion, one sees non-saṃsāra as saṃsāra, and defilements are also like this. Deluded, bodhi is defilement; awakened, defilement is bodhi. Deluded, the four directions swap places; awakened, all is vast and clear with nothing left over. Below, "Why is this?" explains the above defilement being bodhi. In "Because in the ultimate truth there is no duality": defilement and bodhi are identical in having nothing existent; this is called non-dual. All Buddhas up to all phenomena transcend mental activities, and are therefore called suchness. The first question and answer is concluded.