四明尊者教行錄 3.27

3.27

十八問：《止觀》別教一念心為迷解本，引《楞伽》理性如來藏為善不善因。子意謂此句若證終教則是隨緣義，若證別教則非隨緣義者。且今引文略，彼經具云：七識不流轉，不作苦樂因（無明體空）。如來藏為善不善因，若生若滅、受苦樂，與因俱（真如成事）。既能為因，又即生滅，此文如何作不隨緣解耶？若謂不引生滅等文則非隨緣者，且唯識宗中可云真如為善惡因否？又次文以大論池水喻，此如何通？故云如大池水，象入則濁，珠入則清。當知池水為清濁本，珠象以無清濁之緣。今問：池水還隨此二緣為清濁否？若隨者，如何作不隨緣解耶？

The eighteenth query: In the Zhiguan, the one-thought mind of the separate teaching is the root of delusion and understanding, citing the Laṅkāvatāra's principle of the tathāgatagarbha being the cause of good and non-good. Your idea is that if this line proves the final teaching, it has the meaning of according with conditions, but if it proves the separate teaching, it does not have the meaning of according with conditions. But here the citation of the text is abridged; that sūtra fully states: 'The seven consciousnesses do not transmigrate, nor do they act as the cause of suffering and pleasure' (the substance of ignorance is empty). 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good; whether arising or ceasing, experiencing suffering and pleasure, it is together with the cause' (true thusness accomplishes phenomena). Since it can act as the cause and is also immediate to arising and ceasing, how can this text be interpreted as not according with conditions? If you say that not citing the text on arising and ceasing means it does not accord with conditions, could the Vijñaptimātra school say that true thusness is the cause of good and evil? Moreover, the subsequent text illustrates this with the pool water in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa—how can this be explained away? It says: 'Like the water of a great pool: when an elephant enters, it becomes turbid; when a jewel enters, it becomes clear.' One should know that the pool water is the root of clarity and turbidity, while the jewel and elephant are conditions devoid of clarity and turbidity. Now I ask: does the pool water accord with these two conditions to become clear or turbid, or not? If it accords, how could it be interpreted as not according with conditions?