大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.41

37.41

As for the commentary's phrase “if one takes knowing as being able to know quiescence”: this utilizes a verse of a Chan spiritual master. The verse fully states: “If one knows quiescence by means of knowing, this is not objectless knowing; like a hand holding a ruyi scepter, it is not a hand without a ruyi scepter. If one knows by knowing oneself, this is also not objectless knowing; like a hand making a fist, it is not an unfisted hand. Neither knowing quiescence through knowing, nor knowing oneself through knowing, yet it cannot be called non-knowing, because intrinsic nature is clearly distinct, unlike wood and stone. The hand does not hold a ruyi scepter, nor does it make a fist of itself, yet it cannot be called non-hand, because the hand is at ease, unlike wood and stone.” This is the marvel of the Chan school. Therefore it is now used here with a slight difference, because that verse merely reveals objectless true cognition as the true Path. If one negates it, it merely reveals that the fundamental mind does not follow the deluded mind, but does not yet possess the wisdom that illuminates and comprehends the source of the mind. Hence it says: “Therefore subject and object must be equal, and while equal they do not lose illumination,” which is the knowing of non-knowing. Only when this knowing knows the empty, quiescent, unarisen tathāgatagarbha nature is it truly marvelous.