四明尊者教行錄 3.68

3.68

答：理性有三因者，皆但中之德也。別修緣了者，皆二邊之行也。邊既非中，修則成別。何哉？先以聲聞空心斷於見愛，次以菩薩假智斷於塵沙，斯乃從空邊而入有邊，用別惑而除通惑。如此二邊緣了具足，始為中道遮照方便。須登初地正顯但中，即三因橫在佛界。故妙樂云：別教雖有三德之語，三皆在性而不互融，故成別義。若三皆在修前後而得，道理成縱。故知性中緣了不是修中緣了，豈同圓教正因緣了全是三千空假中，修德緣了即性德緣了。不可烈火而濫圓伊。

Answer: That the principle-nature has three causes means they are all virtues of the mere middle. That it separately cultivates the conditioning and revealing means these are both practices of the two extremes. Since an extreme is not the middle, cultivation becomes separate. Why? First, one uses the empty mind of the śrāvaka to sever views and cravings; next, one uses the provisional wisdom of the bodhisattva to sever dust-and-sand. This is proceeding from the side of emptiness into the side of existence, using separate delusions to eliminate shared delusions. When the conditioning and revealing [causes] of these two extremes are fully perfected in this way, they only then become the expedient means of obscuring and illuminating the Middle Way. One must ascend to the first stage to properly manifest the mere middle, whereupon the three causes lie horizontally across the Buddha-realm. Therefore, Miaole says: 'Although the separate teaching speaks of the three virtues, all three reside in the nature and do not interpenetrate, thus constituting the meaning of "separate." If all three were obtained sequentially in cultivation, the principle would form a vertical progression.' Hence we know that the conditioning and revealing within the nature are not the conditioning and revealing within cultivation. How could this be the same as the perfect teaching, where the direct cause, conditioning cause, and revealing cause are entirely the three thousand [realms] as empty, provisional, and middle, and the cultivated virtues of conditioning and revealing are identical to the inherent virtues of conditioning and revealing? One must not confound a blazing fire with the perfect character 'i'.