十不二門指要鈔 1.60

1.60

「二、違《大意》及《金剛錍》。他自引云，隨緣不變名性，不變隨緣名心。引畢乃云，今言心即真如不變性也。今恐他不許荊谿立義。何者？既云不變隨緣名心，顯是即理之事，那得直作理釋？若云，雖隨緣邊屬事，事即理故，故指心為不變性者。佛法生法豈不即邪？若皆即理，何獨指心名不變性？故《金錍》云：『真如是萬法，由隨緣故，萬法是真如，由不變故。』故知若約萬法即理，則生佛、依正俱理，皆不變故，何獨心是理邪？若據眾生在事，則內外色心俱事，皆隨緣故，何獨心非事邪？他云，生佛是因果，法心非因果。驗他直指心法名理，非指事即理，生佛二事會歸心故方云即理，亦非當處即具三千。是知他師雖引唯色之言，亦秖曲成唯真心爾。況復觀心自具二種，即唯識觀及實相觀，因何纔見言心便云是理？又實相觀雖觀理具，非清淨理，乃即事之理也，以依陰等顯故。」

"Second, it contradicts the Dayi and the Jingangpi. He himself quotes: 'According with conditions while remaining unchanging is called nature; remaining unchanging while according with conditions is called mind.' Having finished quoting, he then says: 'Now, saying "mind" means the unchanging nature of true suchness.' Now I fear that he does not accept the doctrine established by Jingxi. Why? Since it says 'remaining unchanging while according with conditions is called mind', it clearly shows that it is phenomena identical with principle; how can it directly be interpreted as principle? If he says that although the aspect of according with conditions belongs to phenomena, phenomena are identical with principle, and therefore points to the mind as the unchanging nature—are the Buddha-dharma and sentient-being-dharma not also identical? If all are identical with principle, why point solely to the mind as the unchanging nature? Therefore the Jingangpi says: 'True suchness is the myriad dharmas, because it accords with conditions; the myriad dharmas are true suchness, because it is unchanging.' Thus we know that if in terms of the myriad dharmas being identical with principle, then sentient beings, Buddhas, dependent and proper [rewards] are all principle, because all are unchanging; why is only the mind principle? If based on sentient beings residing in phenomena, then both internal and external, form and mind, are all phenomena, because all accord with conditions; why is only the mind not a phenomenon? He says that sentient beings and Buddhas are cause and effect, while the dharma of mind is not cause and effect. This proves that he directly points to the dharma of mind as principle, not pointing to phenomena being identical with principle; only when the two phenomena of sentient beings and Buddhas return to and merge into the mind does he say they are identical with principle, nor does he hold that right where they are, they inherently include the three thousand realms. From this we know that although this master cites the words 'form only', he merely twists them to establish 'true mind only'. Furthermore, contemplating the mind itself possesses two kinds: namely, the contemplation of representation-only and the contemplation of the true mark. Why, the moment he sees the word 'mind', does he say it is principle? Moreover, although the contemplation of the true mark contemplates inherent inclusion in principle, it is not pure principle; it is principle identical with phenomena, because it is revealed relying on the skandhas and so forth."