[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [仁王般若經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707) › 2.130 # 仁王般若經疏 2.130 仁王般若經疏 2.130 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.130](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2.130) 白佛言無量品眾生下，第三問答，明法門不二。就中有二：初問、次答。初月光舉所化眾生無量品，明其人別。根亦無量，明其根別。行亦無量，明其行別。此三既異，未知能化法門為一為二為無量也。大王一切法觀門下，第二佛答中有三：第一正答法門不二；大王七佛說下，第二歎教勸修明經功德；大王此經下，第三定經名字勸令受持。就初正答法門不二中有四：初正答前問，明法門不二。從若菩薩下，二舉非顯是，以釋前問。從大王若有若無下，第三明諸諦教門攝一切法皆歸於空。從眾生品品下，第四結酬前問。初正答問中，文云大王一切法觀門下，答前三句：非一答初問，非二答前第二問，乃至無量答第三問。應云非無量而言乃至無量者，欲顯非無量之無量。一二義既非，無量亦爾，互文現意耳。一切法亦非有相下，重舉絕四句，釋前一切法觀門。經家存略，直標破有無二句，餘句可知。亦非有相者，破有相。非非無相者，即是第四句，破非無相，故言非非無相。有人言：非非者是誤，應云非無相。此是不識經耳。第二若菩薩下，舉非顯是。先舉非，文云若菩薩見眾生者，即著我人也。見一見二者，即同僧佉、衛世師一異之見也。次明顯是，文云一二者，第一義諦也，以知正因緣之一二畢竟清淨，無依無得，知此一二相寂滅，故云第一義諦也。 > From "addressed the Buddha, saying: 'The faculties of sentient beings are of immeasurable classes...'" down is the third question and answer, clarifying the non-duality of Dharma-doors. Within it there are two parts: first the question, next the answer. First, Candrabrabha brings up the immeasurable classes of sentient beings to be converted, clarifying the differences among persons. "Their faculties are also immeasurable" clarifies the differences among their faculties. "Their practices are also immeasurable" clarifies the differences among their practices. Since these three are different, he does not know whether the Dharma-doors capable of converting them are one, two, or immeasurable. From "Great King! The contemplation-gates of all dharmas..." down, in the second part, the Buddha's answer has three parts: first, directly answering that Dharma-doors are non-dual; second, from "Great King! Spoken by the seven buddhas..." down, praising the teaching and exhorting cultivation, clarifying the sūtra's merit; third, from "Great King! This sūtra..." down, fixing the name of the sūtra and exhorting its acceptance and upholding. Within the first, directly answering that Dharma-doors are non-dual, there are four points: First, directly answering the preceding question, clarifying that Dharma-doors are non-dual. Second, from "If a bodhisattva..." down, pointing out errors to reveal what is correct, in order to explain the preceding question. Third, from "Great King! If existent or non-existent..." down, clarifying that the teaching-gates of the truths subsume all dharmas and all return to emptiness. Fourth, from "sentient beings are of class after class..." down, concluding in response to the preceding question. In the first point directly answering the question, the text says: "Great King! The contemplation-gates of all dharmas..." down, answering the preceding three clauses: "neither one" answers the first question; "neither two" answers the preceding second question; "up to immeasurable" answers the third question. It ought to say "neither immeasurable," but saying "up to immeasurable" is intended to reveal the immeasurability of non-immeasurable. Since the meanings of one and two are negated, immeasurable is also like this; the complementary wording reveals the intention. From "all dharmas are also neither with marks..." down, it reiterates transcending the four propositions to explain the contemplation-gates of all dharmas above. The sūtra compiler preserved brevity, directly indicating the refutation of the two propositions of existence and non-existence; the remaining propositions can be known. "Also neither with marks" refutes marks of existence. "Nor not without marks" is precisely the fourth proposition, refuting the non-mark of non-existence; hence it says "nor not without marks." Someone says: "'Not not' is an error; it should read 'nor without marks.'" This is simply not understanding the sūtra. Second, from "If a bodhisattva..." down, pointing out errors to reveal what is correct. First, pointing out errors: the text says, "If a bodhisattva sees sentient beings," they are attached to self and person. "Seeing one or seeing two" is identical to the views of oneness and difference of the Sāṃkhyas and Vaiśeṣikas. Next, revealing what is correct: the text says, "One and two are the ultimate truth." Because one knows that the one and two of correct causal conditions are completely pure, without reliance and without acquisition, and knows that the marks of this one and two are quiescent and extinguished, it is therefore called the ultimate truth. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.129](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2.129) - [Next: 2.131](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2.131) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707~en-mt.2.130) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2.130](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1707.2.130) · Pramāṇa