仁王經疏 2.481

2.481

釋曰：第二明所觀法非唯一二，故說亦言。然釋此文，諸說不同。有說：亦非有相者，單破有相。非非無相者，復破有相。依《本記》云「相不可得，故言非有相，非非是非無相。彼相者，相與法一、與相異？般若相與法一，法未成就，誰與相一？若已成就，即不所相。」有云：應作四句，謂非有相、非無相、非非有相、非非無相。為存略故，且說初後。今解：准上有三句。一非有相，若爾應是無相，故言非無相。若爾，非應是非無相，故言非非無相。今舉初後准顯中句，故但二句。

Exposition: Second, clarifying that the contemplated phenomena are not merely one or two, hence it says "also." However, in explaining this text, various interpretations differ. Some say: "also not endowed with marks" simply refutes having marks; "nor are they not without marks" further refutes having marks. According to the Original Commentary: "Because marks cannot be found, it says 'not endowed with marks, nor are they not without marks.' As for those marks: are mark and phenomenon one, or are they different? Prajñā's mark and phenomena are one; if phenomena are not yet accomplished, what is unified with the mark? If already accomplished, then they are not what is marked." Some say: one should make four phrases, namely: not endowed with marks, not without marks, not neither endowed with marks, and not neither without marks. For the sake of brevity, it only mentions the first and last. Now it is explained: based on the above, there are three phrases: first, "not endowed with marks"—if so, they should be without marks, hence it says "not without marks"; if so, they should not be without marks, hence it says "nor are they not without marks." Now, by mentioning the first and last, the middle phrase is implicitly revealed; therefore there are only two phrases.