大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 1.35

1.35

As for the commentary's "Cultivating both phenomena and principle, relying on innate cognition to seek the Buddha's cognition," the second [pair clarifies] that non-obstruction allows both to coexist. Fearing that people might mistakenly cling to the aforementioned meaning of non-obstructive interpenetration as obliterating the two characteristics, he therefore raised these words. It is also because those deluded people who cling to Chan rely on the original nature as being without activity and without cultivation, the mirror being originally bright of itself without needing to be wiped or polished; while those who cling to dharmas must give rise to phenomenal practices, seeking the Tathāgata and relying on other superior conditions to accomplish their own virtues—both are biased attachments. Therefore these two are practiced together: "relying on innate cognition" is stated in terms of principle, because the nature of uncontaminated cognition is fundamentally complete. "Seeking the Buddha's cognition" is discussed in terms of phenomena: within the state where nothing is to be sought, I nevertheless seek it, because the mind-mirror is fundamentally pure yet has long been dimmed by worldly defilements; because the nature-virtues [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges are all buried in defilements [as numerous as] dust and sand; because in accord with the dharma-nature, which lacks stinginess and greed, one cultivates the perfection of giving and so forth; and because all Buddhas have already realized it while I have not yet realized it. Furthermore, principle does not obstruct phenomena, so seeking it is not hindered; phenomena do not obstruct principle, so seeking is itself non-seeking. Cultivation such as this is called non-cultivation. The cultivation of non-cultivation, where cultivation is itself non-cultivation, is true cultivation.