仁王經疏 2.405

2.405

釋曰：第二略示義端。謂汝今無聽、我今無說。謂《本記》云「有聽有說，即是不一，無聽無說，即云不一，即是二諦。一真、二俗，不二即是第一義諦。非真非俗，故名第一義諦。」一云：不一即是二諦差別義，不二即是二諦無差別義。非謂二諦之外，更立第三諦。雖有兩說，後說為正；不爾，應言三諦品也。有作是難：有說有聽即為二義，便違上說。二諦為二，聽說皆是俗諦義故。今解：不爾。欲遮定執真俗一異，故今分別。隨凡情取，二諦定異；隨聖智辨，非有差別，非謂聽說別配二諦。

Commentary: Second, briefly showing the direction of the meaning. That is, you now have no listening, and I now have no expounding. The Benji says: 'Having listening and having expounding is being not one; having no listening and having no expounding is being not one, which is the two truths. First is ultimate, second is conventional; being non-dual is paramārtha-satya. Being neither ultimate nor conventional, it is therefore called paramārtha-satya.' One says: not one is the meaning of distinction between the two truths; non-dual is the meaning of non-distinction between the two truths. It does not mean establishing a third truth outside the two truths. Although there are two explanations, the latter explanation is correct; otherwise, it should be called the Chapter on the Three Truths. Someone presents this objection: having expounding and having listening is already the two meanings, which then contradicts the explanation above. If the two truths are two, both listening and expounding are meanings of conventional truth. Now my explanation is: this is not so. Wishing to prevent fixed attachments to the ultimate and conventional being one or different, he now distinguishes them. According to the grasping of ordinary sentiments, the two truths are definitely different; according to the discernment of noble wisdom, there is no difference—it does not mean separately assigning listening and expounding to the two truths.