肇論新疏 2.268

2.268

若實智冥符為一，何故前云寂照之二？以寂即是定、照即是慧，故依此求心，心應兩異。又若智體虛怕獨存為一，應不會於群數之機。既獨存不應，何故前云應逾動？若許應動，自合實外別有一權智，以冥本寂時更不能應故。若如是者，二心宛殊。幾息等言，文借《周易》，彼云：「乾坤或幾乎息矣。」

If tattva-jñāna darkly tallying is one, why did he earlier speak of the duality of quiescence and illumination? Because quiescence is samādhi and illumination is prajñā; therefore, seeking the mind according to this, the mind ought to be twofold and different. Furthermore, if the substance of wisdom is empty, tranquil, and solitary in abiding as one, it ought not to tally with the capacities of the multitude of reckonings. Since it abides solitarily and does not respond, why did he earlier say 'the response becomes all the more active'? If one grants that the response is active, there naturally ought to be a separate upāya-jñāna distinct from tattva, because when it darkly tallies with original quiescence it can no longer respond. If it is like this, the two minds are clearly distinct. The phrasing 'close to ceasing' borrows from the Zhouyi, where it says: 'Qian and Kun would almost cease.'