仁王般若經疏 2.130

2.130

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.