四明尊者教行錄 3.72

3.72

答：荊溪謂《華嚴經》意兼含，義難分判。祖尚斯說，今何敢評。然而委尋大師引用彼經證於圓別，亦可意解。且如《止觀》引心如工畫師，造種種五陰等，證於圓教。《玄義》亦引此文，證於別教。故知談即不談即難得顯文，但以得意不得意而分兩教。何者？圓人謂心具而造，則諸法無生，即在其中矣。別人謂心不具而造，則諸法自住，離在其中矣。若乃諸位行相或一多相即、或次第別陳，荊溪已在諸文備載，此不繁述。

Answer: Jingxi stated that the meaning of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is comprehensive and its doctrine difficult to distinguish and judge. When the patriarch still spoke thus, how would I dare evaluate it now? Nevertheless, if one closely examines the Great Master's citations of that sūtra to verify the perfect and separate, they can also be understood in meaning. For instance, the Zhiguan cites 'the mind is like a skilled painter, creating the various five aggregates,' etc., to verify the perfect teaching. The Xuanyi also cites this passage to verify the separate teaching. Thus one knows that it is difficult to find explicit passages speaking of identity versus non-identity; the two teachings are distinguished merely by whether one grasps the intent or fails to grasp it. Why? A person of the perfect [teaching] holds that the mind inherently possesses and creates, so all dharmas are unproduced—identity is contained therein. A person of the separate [teaching] holds that the mind does not inherently possess yet creates, so all dharmas abide in themselves—separation is contained therein. As for the characteristics of the practices of the stages, whether one and many are mutually identical or expounded sequentially in separation, Jingxi has already recorded them fully in various texts, so I will not elaborate here.