仁王經疏 1.264

1.264

釋曰：自下第二問答分別觀照般若，先問、後答。今此問意，具如《本記》。有法者，是世俗境。非非法者，是真諦境。執諸法有，即增益謗。諸法非有，是損減謗。雙遮二謗，是故重言非非法。此難意云：為如俗諦有法故照？為如真諦非非法照？或可諸法同真際、等法性，離四句、絕百非。即是境空，如何般若有照用非？

Exposition: Below, this is the second part: questions and answers distinguishing the prajñā of contemplative illumination, with the question first and the answer later. The intention of this question is fully set forth in the Original Commentary. “Existent dharmas” are the cognitive object of conventional truth. “Non-non-dharmas” are the cognitive object of ultimate truth. Grasping dharmas as existent is the depreciation of exaggeration. Grasping dharmas as non-existent is the depreciation of diminution. To double-negate both depreciations, it therefore reiterates “non-non-dharmas.” The intention of this objection is: Does it illuminate like the existent dharmas of conventional truth? Or does it illuminate like the non-non-dharmas of ultimate truth? Or perhaps all dharmas are identical with the limit of reality, equal to the nature of phenomena, transcending the four propositions, and cutting off the hundred negations; this is the emptiness of the cognitive object, so how could prajñā have an illuminative function or not?