大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.9

14.9

二述問意者，謂明心性是一，云何見有報類種種？若性隨事異則失真諦，若事隨性一則壞俗諦。設彼救言：報類差別自由業等熏識變現，不關心性，故無相違者。為遮此救，故重難云：業不知心等，謂心業五依各無自性，自性向無何能相知而生諸法？既離真性各無自立，明此皆依心性而起。心性既一，事應不多；事法既多，性應非一。此是本末相違難，亦是理事相違，亦一異相違，亦真妄相違。

Second, stating the intent of the inquiry: it clarifies that the nature of the mind is one, so how is it seen that there are various kinds of retributions? If the nature were to vary according to phenomena, then ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) would be lost; if phenomena were to be one according to the nature, then conventional truth would be destroyed. Suppose they rescue [their argument] by saying: 'The differences in kinds of retributions naturally arise from karma and so forth perfuming consciousness and transforming into manifestation, having no relation to the nature of the mind, and therefore there is no contradiction.' In order to block this rescue, the challenge is reiterated, saying: 'Karma does not know the mind,' and so forth, meaning that the five supports of mind and karma each lack intrinsic nature (svabhāva); since intrinsic nature is fundamentally non-existent, how could they mutually know each other to produce all phenomena? Since none can establish itself apart from the true nature, it is clear that these all arise relying on the nature of the mind. Since the nature of the mind is one, phenomena should not be manifold; since phenomenal dharmas are manifold, the nature should not be one. This is the contradiction between root and branch, also the contradiction between noumenon and phenomena, also the contradiction between oneness and difference, and also the contradiction between true and false.