宗鏡錄 36.47

36.47

The objection says: Things cannot communicate themselves; therefore names are established to communicate things. Although a thing is not a name, there certainly exists a thing that can be named corresponding to this name. Therefore, seeking the thing according to its name, the thing cannot hide. Yet the treatise says: 'The holy mind is without knowledge,' and also says: 'It has nothing it does not know.' The meaning suggests that 'no knowledge' has never known, and 'knowing' has never been without knowledge. This is what the teachings of names communicate, and the original intention behind establishing words. Yet the author of the treatise wishes to unify them in the holy mind while differentiating them from the literal purport of the text. Seeking the reality by examining the text, I do not see its appropriateness. Why? If knowing is found in the holy mind, then 'no knowledge' has nothing to discern; if 'no knowledge' is found in the holy mind, knowing also has nothing to discern. If both are utterly unfound, there would be nothing left to discuss!