肇論新疏 2.328

2.328

This answers the first objection from before. The first four lines state that being marvelously consummated and silently matching cuts off both stillness and illumination. The two lines beginning with "How could there be..." question in reverse: when reaching this utmost point of identity with non-being, how could it admit distinct designations of samādhi and wisdom? The question asks: "If it is so, why did it say before that stillness is function and function is stillness?" Below, it explains: "The designations of samādhi and wisdom are not appellations outside of this identity." The intention is: the designations of samādhi and wisdom are precisely the stillness and illumination of identity with non-being; how could there be two separate designations apart from this identity?