仁王般若經疏 2.116

2.116

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."