十不二門指要鈔 1.34

1.34

答：「實非別指，秖由性惡融通寂滅，自受菩提涅槃之名，蓋從勝立也。此則豈同皮肉之見乎？又既煩惱等全是性惡，豈可一向云本無耶？然汝所引達磨印於可師，本無煩惱元是菩提等，斯乃圭峯異說，致令後人以此為極，便棄三道唯觀真心。若據祖堂自云，二祖禮三拜，依位立。豈言煩惱菩提一無一有耶？故不可以圭峯異說，而格今家妙談爾。」

Answer: 'It truly does not point to something else; merely because nature-inherent evil is fused, unhindered, and quiescent, it naturally receives the names bodhi and nirvāṇa, established by taking the superior. How could this be the same as the views of skin and flesh? Furthermore, since defilements and so forth are entirely nature-inherent evil, how could one exclusively say they originally do not exist? However, what you cited about Bodhidharma verifying Master Huike with "originally there are no defilements, fundamentally it is bodhi" and so forth is an anomalous theory from Guifeng, which led later people to take this as the ultimate and thereupon discard the three paths to contemplate only the true mind. If we rely on the Hall of Patriarchs, it says only: "The Second Patriarch made three prostrations and stood in his place." How did it say that defilement and bodhi are one non-existent and one existent? Therefore, one must not use Guifeng's anomalous theory to evaluate our school's subtle exposition.'