四明尊者教行錄 3.25

3.25

十六問：子云別教云不即，終教說即，為不同者。蓋子迷名，全不究理。以彼不談性具九界，乃是但理隨緣作九，若斷無明，九界須壞。若九界即是真如理者（大意與《止觀》皆以是義釋，即如云初心是後心是等），何須除九？豈非九界定能障理耶？若謂不然，終教還說九界皆是法界一一遍收否？若說，與彼圓何別？若不說者，安稱即耶？況彼圓既未談性具三千，雖說一一遍收，尚未有遍收所以，若比今圓不成即義，況終教耶？

The sixteenth query: You say that the separate teaching says 'not identical' while the final teaching says 'identical', making them different. This is because you are confused by names and do not investigate principle at all. Because it does not speak of the nine realms being inherently possessed in the nature, it is merely principle according with conditions to make the nine; if ignorance is severed, the nine realms must be destroyed. If the nine realms are identical with the principle of true thusness (both the Great Purport and the Zhiguan explain with this meaning, such as saying the initial mind is the subsequent mind, and so on), why would it be necessary to eliminate the nine? Is it not that the nine realms can definitely obstruct principle? If one claims this is not so, does the final teaching also say that the nine realms are all the dharmadhātu, each and every one all-encompassing, or not? If it does, what distinction is there between it and their perfect [teaching]? If it does not, how can it be called 'identical'? Furthermore, since their perfect [teaching] does not speak of the nature inherently possessing the three thousand, although it speaks of each and every one being all-encompassing, it does not yet have the reason for all-encompassing; if compared to our perfect [teaching], it does not achieve the meaning of 'identical', how much less the final teaching?