四明十義書 1.206

1.206

蓋由自昔不知理具與事造，不分而分故也。及被問疑書，以二造徵之。上人迷情似改，略知理具與事造約義須分，又偶得造字通於具義，遂於答疑書內翻文諱罪。乃云：問疑書抑是揚非，枉於《辨訛》將心具便是外境。故特註所造三千云理具名造，實非事造。次文又云：言所造三千者，即是所具三千名造，實非外境事造也（上皆答疑書明文，收掌見在）。

This is all because from the past you did not know that inherent possession in principle and phenomenal making are distinguished without being divided. When you were confronted with my Letter Inquiring on Doubts, which examined you on the two makings, your deluded thinking seemed to alter, and you came to know slightly that inherent possession in principle and phenomenal making must be distinguished in terms of meaning; furthermore, having chanced upon the fact that the character 'making' (zao) extends to the meaning of 'inherent possession' (ju), you then inverted your words in your Letter Answering Doubts to conceal your fault. You said: 'The Letter Inquiring on Doubts suppresses what is right and promotes what is wrong, falsely accusing the Bian'e of identifying the mind's inherent possession with external objects. Therefore I specifically annotated the three thousand that are made by saying that inherent possession in principle is called 'making', and that it is truly not phenomenal making.' The subsequent passage further says: 'Speaking of the three thousand that are made refers precisely to the three thousand that are inherently possessed being called 'making', and is truly not the phenomenal making of external objects.' (The above are clear texts from your Letter Answering Doubts, which are kept in hand and currently exist.)