四明尊者教行錄 2.56

2.56

九問：鈔曰或謂性惡是理毒者，毒義雖成，消義全闕。若無消義，安稱用耶（文）？詰曰：一家圓談若許理毒即性惡義，那得復云消義全闕？若爾，荊溪何故云：忽都未聞性惡之名，安能信有性德之行耶？然不知理毒即性惡者，何異都不聞耶？縱許理毒為性惡已，那又責云消義全闕？此乃雖聞而不解矣。且荊溪之意，唯恐不聞性惡則無性德之行，今何返此耶？如斯述作，莫成壞己宗途否？莫成翳人眼目否？若謂不然，恭請三復斯文，探賾大旨細為答釋。

Ninth Question: The Chao states: 'Some say that nature-evil is principle poison; although the meaning of poison is established, the meaning of extinguishing is completely lacking. If there is no meaning of extinguishing, how can it be called a function?' (Text) I interrogate this: If our school's perfect discussion allows that principle poison is the meaning of nature-evil, how could you further say that the meaning of extinguishing is completely lacking? If so, why did Jingxi say: 'If one has not even heard the name of nature-evil, how could one believe there is the practice of nature-virtue?' Now, for one who does not know that principle poison is nature-evil, how is it different from not having heard it at all? Even if you grant that principle poison is nature-evil, why do you further criticize it by saying the meaning of extinguishing is completely lacking? This is to have heard it and yet not understood it. Furthermore, Jingxi's intention was solely for fear that if one did not hear of nature-evil there would be no practice of nature-virtue; why do you now reverse this? Does such a composition not destroy the path of your own school? Does it not blind people's eyes? If you say it is not so, I respectfully invite you to examine this text repeatedly, probe its profound purport, and provide detailed answers.