大乘義章 1.90

1.90

問曰：諸法有一二三乃至眾多，翻彼說理，理應不一不二不三乃至不多。以何義故偏言不二？釋言：不一乃至不多，經有說處。故《涅槃》云「除一法相，不可算數。」《華嚴》亦云「眾多法中，無一法相；於一法中，亦無多相。」但今且就一不二門而辨道理，餘略不論。良以二者彼此通謂，是故偏對而說不二。又復二者別法之始，今此為明理體無別，故偏對二而說不二。雖說不二，不一不三乃至不多悉入其中。是義云何？若立一相，以一對多，即是其二；翻對彼二，故名不二。若立多相，以多對少，還即是二；翻對彼二，故名不二。又立多相，於多法中彼此相對，亦即是二；翻對彼二，故為不二。以是義故，遣多悉入不二。多少既然，遣染遣淨、遣縛遣解、遣有遣無，類亦同然。若立有相，以有對無，即是其二；翻對彼二，名為不二。若立無相，以無對有，還即是二；翻對彼二，名為不二。翻若當定立非有無相，以非有無對有對無，即復是二；翻對彼二，名為不二。乃至建立不二門相，不二對二，還復是二；翻對彼二，名為不二。是故不二，有相皆遣、有理悉收，故偏名之。

Question: Dharmas exist as one, two, three, and even many. Reversing these to speak of principle, principle should be neither one nor two nor three and even not many. For what reason is it specifically said to be non-dual? Explanation: "Not one" and even "not many" are spoken of in places in the sūtras. Hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Except for the characteristic of a single dharma, it cannot be calculated." The Avataṃsaka also says: "Among many dharmas, there is no characteristic of a single dharma; within a single dharma, there are also no many characteristics." But here, for the present, we distinguish principle solely with respect to the single gate of non-duality, leaving the rest undiscussed in brief. Indeed, because "two" is a comprehensive term for "this" and "that," it is specifically addressed in speaking of non-duality. Furthermore, "two" is the beginning of differentiated dharmas; now, to clarify that the essence of principle has no differentiation, it specifically opposes "two" in speaking of non-duality. Although it speaks of non-duality, "not one," "not three," and even "not many" are all included within it. What does this mean? If one establishes the characteristic of one, contrasting one with many is precisely "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is therefore called non-dual. If one establishes the characteristic of many, contrasting many with few is again precisely "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is therefore called non-dual. Furthermore, if one establishes the characteristic of many, within many dharmas, "this" and "that" opposing each other is also precisely "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is therefore non-dual. For this reason, dismissing many is entirely subsumed under non-duality. Many and few being so, dismissing defilement and dismissing purity, dismissing bondage and dismissing liberation, dismissing existence and dismissing non-existence, are likewise analogous. If one establishes the characteristic of existence, contrasting existence with non-existence is precisely "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is called non-dual. If one establishes the characteristic of non-existence, contrasting non-existence with existence is again precisely "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is called non-dual. If one definitively establishes the characteristic of neither existence nor non-existence, contrasting neither existence nor non-existence with existence and non-existence is again "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is called non-dual. And even establishing the characteristic of the gate of non-duality, non-duality contrasting with duality is again "two"; reversing and countering that two, it is called non-dual. Therefore, in non-duality, whenever there is a characteristic it is entirely dismissed, and whenever there is a principle it is entirely subsumed; hence it is specifically named this.