大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 79.65

79.65

Regarding the commentary's statement from "If one relies on the latter meaning" downward: this shows the flaws of the Dharma-nature school. Within this are two: first, direct refutation; second, concessionary refutation. In the first are also two: first, showing the contradiction in meaning, because emptiness obstructing existence is termed the error of denigration (apavāda); second, from "Nor can it account for..." downward, showing its contradiction with the text. Since the text already says that cognition is immeasurable, one thereby knows the Tathāgata's mind. It does not say knowing the Tathāgata's cognition; this makes clear that by means of cognition one knows mind, so mind exists. How can one say it is absent?