仁王經疏 2.399

2.399

釋曰：第二、雙難有無，先無、後有。然此二難諸說不同，依《本記》云「若言無者，凡夫智不應二，謂真及俗。若言有者，聖人智即不應一，謂第一義諦智。據理論之，不一不二。若定唯一，凡夫見俗亦見真故，即應成聖。」若依《本業經．佛母品》，有其二問：一問一二、二問有無。答有四重，彼云「二諦法性，為一為二？為有為無？」下佛答云「佛子！二諦者，世諦有故不空，無諦空故不有。二常爾故不一，聖照空故不二。有佛無佛，法界不變，法常清淨故不二。諸佛還為凡夫故不空，無無故不有。空實故不一，本際不生故不二。不壞假名諸法相故不空，諸法即非諸法故不有。法非法故不二，非非法故不一。」具說如彼。

Commentary: Second, paired dilemmas regarding existence and non-existence, first non-existence and then existence. However, there are different explanations regarding these two dilemmas. Relying on the Benji: 'If you say there is not, an ordinary person's wisdom should not be two, namely ultimate and conventional. If you say there is, a noble person's wisdom should not be one, namely paramārtha-satya wisdom. Considering it according to principle, it is neither one nor two. If it were definitely only one, since ordinary persons see the conventional they would also see the ultimate, and thus should become noble persons.' If relying on the 'Buddha Mother Chapter' of the Benye jing, there are two questions: first, asking about one or two; second, asking about existence or non-existence. The answers have four tiers. That text says: 'Are the dharma-natures of the two truths one or two? Are they existent or non-existent?' Below, the Buddha answers: 'Son of the Buddha! Regarding the two truths, because conventional truth exists, it is not empty; because non-truth is empty, it is not existent. Because the two are always thus, they are not one; because the noble illuminates emptiness, they are not two. Whether buddhas exist or not, the dharmadhātu does not change; because dharmas are always pure, they are not two. Buddhas still act for ordinary beings, hence they are not empty; because non-existence does not exist, they are not existent. Because emptiness is real, they are not one; because the fundamental limit does not arise, they are not two. Because the marks of all dharmas of designated names are not destroyed, they are not empty; because all dharmas are not dharmas, they are not existent. Because dharmas are non-dharmas, they are not two; because they are non-non-dharmas, they are not one.' It is fully stated as in that text.