四明尊者教行錄 3.11

3.11

二問：藏疏又云：唯識宗未明業相等與真如同以一心為源，故說真如無覺知凝然不變，不許隨緣。荊溪既釋別教根塵一念為迷解本，云理性如來為善惡本，豈非業相等與真如同以一心為生法之源耶？既爾，安云別理不隨緣耶？

Question 2: Fazang's commentary also says: 'The Consciousness-Only school has not yet clarified that the karmic marks and suchness share the one mind as their single source; therefore it says that suchness lacks awareness and cognition, is statically unchanging, and does not allow for following conditions.' Since Jingxi explained that in the separate teaching a single thought of sense-bases and sense-objects is the source of delusion and awakening, and said that the Tathāgata as nature of principle is the root of good and evil, is it not the case that the karmic marks and suchness share the one mind as the source of producing dharmas? This being so, how can you say the separate principle does not follow conditions?