大般涅槃經疏 23.24

23.24

「師子吼言」下，第二番問答。問為三：正難、釋難、結過。初正難者，我若二嚴則不應問，佛若二嚴則不應答，以問答非二嚴故。「所以者何」下，釋難，明諸法無有一種二種。「一種二種」下，結過，是凡夫相。佛答，還詶其三：一詶初難。只由具二莊嚴，一能問、二能答。二「若言」下，詶其釋難。只由解一二無一二故，能問一二，能答一二。眾生不解一二無一二，今示其一二，令知無一二，非是一二於一二，乃是無一二之一二，亦是言於無言，非是言於言。「善男子若言」下，詶其結過，翻其前難（云云）。前云是凡夫相，今云是十住相。先唱生死、涅槃兩章門；次釋一名涅槃，是常，常即無二；次釋二名生死愛無明，過現故為二，二則非一。此之一二，非凡夫相。解為兩：一云正須此語，其云一二是凡夫相，佛言一二非凡夫相。二解云凡夫不知一亦不知二，雖在生死不識生死，若知一二者非凡夫相。今解不爾，一者是常，此大涅槃常，故非凡夫相。二者生死無明與愛，此即二乘涅槃，未除無明沈空之愛，即是生死之二。此二非凡夫。菩薩能知此二此不二，無一二過，則非凡夫。福慧平等是圓教義，今師子吼難此圓義，圓教雙亡無一無二，那忽能問一二能答一二？佛還以圓教雙照答之。良以雙亡一二則能雙照一二，雙照一二即能雙答一二。還以雙照答其釋難，良以一二故能無一二，若無一二何能無一二？又以雙照答其結過。汝言一二是凡夫相？我言一二非凡夫相？雙照一二豈非凡夫相？不作圓教問答，此義難解。

From "Siṃhanāda said" onward is the second round of questions and answers. The inquiry consists of three parts: the direct objection, the explanation of the objection, and the conclusion of error. First, the direct objection is: if I possessed both adornments, I should not ask; if the Buddha possessed both adornments, he should not answer, because asking and answering do not constitute the two adornments. From "Why is this?" onward explains the objection, clarifying that all dharmas have neither a single nor a dual nature. From "One kind or two kinds" onward concludes the error: this is a characteristic of ordinary beings. In the Buddha's reply, he responds to those three in return. First, he responds to the initial objection: it is precisely due to being endowed with the two adornments that, first, one can ask, and second, one can answer. Second, from "If it is said" onward responds to his explanation of the objection: precisely because one understands that oneness and duality are without oneness or duality, one can ask about oneness and duality and answer about oneness and duality. Sentient beings do not understand that oneness and duality lack oneness and duality; now, displaying oneness and duality to them causes them to know the absence of oneness and duality. This is not treating oneness and duality as oneness and duality, but rather the oneness and duality of the absence of oneness and duality; it is also speaking of the unspeakable, not speaking of speech. From "Good son, if it is said" onward responds to his conclusion of error, overturning his previous objection (and so forth). Previously it was said to be a characteristic of ordinary beings; now it is said to be a characteristic of the tenth abode. He first announces the two headings of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. Next, he explains that "one" is named nirvāṇa, which is eternal, and the eternal is non-dual. Next, he explains that "two" is named the craving and ignorance of saṃsāra; since they belong to the past and present, they constitute two, and two is not one. This oneness and duality are not characteristics of ordinary beings. Commentators give two interpretations. The first says: these words are strictly required; when he said that oneness and duality are characteristics of ordinary beings, the Buddha stated that oneness and duality are not characteristics of ordinary beings. The second interpretation says: ordinary beings know neither the one nor the two; though residing in saṃsāra, they do not recognize saṃsāra; if one knows the one and the two, this is not a characteristic of ordinary beings. The present interpretation is not so. "One" is the eternal; because this great nirvāṇa is eternal, it is not a characteristic of ordinary beings. "Two" refers to the ignorance and craving of saṃsāra; this refers to the nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, which has not yet eliminated ignorance and the craving that sinks into emptiness, which constitutes the duality of saṃsāra. These two are not ordinary beings. Bodhisattvas are able to know this duality and this non-duality, free from the fault of oneness and duality, and are therefore not ordinary beings. The equality of merit and wisdom is the meaning of the Perfect Teaching. Here Siṃhanāda objects to this perfect meaning: the Perfect Teaching mutually extinguishes both, having neither one nor two—how then can one suddenly ask of one and two or answer of one and two? The Buddha replies in turn with the dual illumination of the Perfect Teaching. Truly, because the dual extinction of one and two is realized, one can dually illuminate one and two; dually illuminating one and two, one can dually answer of one and two. He likewise responds to his explanation of the objection with dual illumination: truly, through one and two, one can achieve the absence of one and two; without one and two, how could one achieve the absence of one and two? Furthermore, he responds to his conclusion of error with dual illumination. You say that one and two are characteristics of ordinary beings? I say that one and two are not characteristics of ordinary beings. How could dually illuminating one and two be a characteristic of ordinary beings? Without framing it as a question and answer of the Perfect Teaching, this meaning is difficult to comprehend.