四明尊者教行錄 3.29

3.29

二十問：子云《指要》為破安國師立問，故特立別理隨緣者。蓋子不解安國問意，致茲謬說。如彼問云：別教真如不隨緣，起信真如能隨緣，未審起信為別為圓？若別，文且相違。若圓，乖彼藏疏。且初云隨緣不隨緣者，蓋為泛學者妄謂別教不談隨緣，《起信》乃說隨緣，故順常情而為問端。既共知《起信》談於真如隨緣，故定之曰，未審此隨緣義是別是圓？蓋泛學之者不知真如隨緣通於兩教，故茲雙定。後正難云：若謂《起信》是別，且違論文，以論文一心攝世出世法及相大，明具無量性功德，是本具千如故。又十住八相是圓教分真，任運垂應是圓位故。若定判屬別，則違論此文也。若定判屬圓，則乖藏疏。以疏不約心具百界為攝世出世法，及無量性功德不約性善性惡釋之。又十住八相不說分真而辨，乃云是伏見思住願力神通而作故。若判屬圓，則違疏中此等文故。子今若執安國定判終教是今圓者，何故正難云：若圓乖彼藏疏，藏疏正用終教釋乎《起信》。若終教是圓者，作圓說之，恰順藏疏，那云若圓乖彼藏疏耶。

The twentieth query: You say that the Zhiyao posed a question to refute Master Anguo, and therefore specially established that the principle of the separate [teaching] accords with conditions. This is because you do not understand the intention of Anguo's query, resulting in this erroneous talk. As his query says: 'The true thusness of the separate teaching does not accord with conditions, while the true thusness of the Awakening of Faith can accord with conditions; I wonder whether the Awakening of Faith is separate or perfect? If it is separate, the texts conflict. If it is perfect, it violates Fazang's commentary.' Now, the initial mention of 'according with conditions or not according with conditions' was merely because broad learners falsely thought that the separate teaching does not speak of according with conditions while the Awakening of Faith does speak of according with conditions, so he followed common sentiment to set up the inquiry. Since it was commonly known that the Awakening of Faith speaks of true thusness according with conditions, he determined it by asking: I wonder whether this meaning of according with conditions is separate or perfect? Broad learners did not know that true thusness according with conditions applies to both teachings, so he posed this double determination. Then, when he raised the actual difficulty, he said: If one says that the Awakening of Faith is separate, it contradicts the treatise text, because the treatise text states that the one mind subsumes mundane and supramundane dharmas, and in the greatness of attributes clarifies that it possesses immeasurable virtues of the nature, which means originally possessing the thousand thusnesses; furthermore, the ten abodes and eight manifestations are the partial reality of the perfect teaching, effortlessly extending responses being the stages of the perfect teaching. If one definitely determines it as belonging to the separate [teaching], it contradicts these passages of the treatise. If one definitely determines it as belonging to the perfect [teaching], it violates Fazang's commentary, because the commentary does not explain the subsumption of mundane and supramundane dharmas in terms of the mind possessing the hundred realms, nor does it interpret the immeasurable virtues of the nature in terms of inherent good and inherent evil. Furthermore, it does not explain the ten abodes and eight manifestations in terms of partial reality, but says that they are performed by subduing view and thought [afflictions] through the power of vows and supernormal powers. If one determines it as belonging to the perfect [teaching], it contradicts such passages in the commentary. If you now cling to Anguo having definitely determined the final teaching to be our perfect [teaching], why did he state in his actual difficulty: 'If it is perfect, it violates Fazang's commentary'? Fazang's commentary precisely uses the final teaching to explain the Awakening of Faith. If the final teaching were the perfect [teaching], explaining it as perfect would precisely accord with Fazang's commentary; why would he say: 'If it is perfect, it violates Fazang's commentary'?