維摩經玄疏 5.132

5.132

答曰：若爾，與地人用《楞伽經》，豈不碩相逆！今研兩家所執，互有得失。若言「阿黎耶識非本性清淨」者，《攝大乘論》何故云「如地即是金土，黎耶識亦爾，染同於土，淨同於金」，故知義通二邊，何兩家偏執。今說黎耶識，即是真性解脫者如金，即是生死根本者如土。

Answer: If so, would that not contradict the masters of the Daśabhūmika who rely on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to a great extent? Now, examining what the two schools adhere to, each has its strengths and flaws. If one says that 'the *ālayavijñāna* is not pure in its original nature,' why does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha state: 'Just as earth contains both gold and dirt, the *ālayavijñāna* is likewise; defilement corresponds to the dirt, and purity corresponds to the gold'? Thus we know the meaning extends to both sides; why should the two schools cling one-sidedly? Now we say that the *ālayavijñāna* being the liberation of the true nature is like the gold, while being the root of birth-and-death is like the dirt.