四明尊者教行錄 3.102

3.102

答：若知常住之體具足三千，則生死凋變皆常住標幟之相也。從本自爾，非今始然。既知生是性生乃至變是性變，性元不動，相豈非常？但局情未忘，則生死相反；儻唯心所見，則凋變皆如。自非性具之談，安會相常之旨？雖藏疏謂之不變、《肇論》謂之不遷，若以今望他，則皆有言無義。荊溪云：永異諸說。梁肅曰：抗折百家。豈虛言哉？良有以也。

Answer: If one knows that the substance of the permanently abiding is fully endowed with the three thousand, then birth-and-death and withering-and-change are all the heraldic marks of the permanently abiding. It has been so from the origin, not just beginning now. Since one knows that birth is inherent birth, up to change is inherent change, and the nature is fundamentally unmoving, how could the marks not be permanent? It is only because confined sentiments are not forgotten that birth and death seem contrary; if seen solely through the mind, withering and change are all Suchness. If not for the discourse of inherent inclusion, how could one comprehend the purport of the permanence of marks? Although the commentary on the Piṭaka calls it 'unchanging' and the Zhao Treatise calls it 'unmoving,' if examined from the perspective of our present [teaching], they both have words without the actual meaning. Jingxi said: 'It is forever different from all other theories.' Liang Su said: 'It stands against and refutes the hundred schools.' How could these be empty words? There is truly good reason for it.