四明尊者教行錄 3.9

3.9

有當宗學者問余曰：仁於《指要鈔》中立別教真如有隨緣義耶？余曰：然。客曰：且如法藏師著疏釋《起信論》，專立真如具不變、隨緣二義，乃云：不變即隨緣，隨緣即不變。仍於彼五教中屬乎終教亦兼頓教。而對破唯識宗談真如之理，唯論不變，不說隨緣。審究唯識正是今家別教。彼終頓二教所明不變隨緣，乃是今家圓教之理，仁那云別理隨緣耶？余語曰：藏師約何義判唯識所談真如不隨緣耶？客曰：《起信疏》云：唯識宗只以業相為諸法生起之本，彼之真如無覺無知、凝然不變，不許隨緣。但說八識生滅，縱轉成四智，亦唯是有為，不得即理，故詮法分齊唯齊業識。余曰：灼然。若云真如性有覺知，則可熏變，乃說隨緣。既唯頑騃，乃不受熏。既不受熏，安能隨緣變造諸法？因詰之曰：別教真如無覺知耶？若無覺知，何故得名佛性？故《輔行》云：今家教門所明中道，唯有二義：一離斷常，屬前二教；二者佛性，屬後二教。別教中道既名佛性，佛非覺義耶？若中理頑騃、本無覺知，焉是大覺果人之性？況性以不改為義，若因無覺義至果方有，此則改轉，那名性耶？又妙樂云：凡別教中立佛果者，有其三意：一者以理性為佛界、二者以果頭為佛界、三者以初地去分名佛界。別教既立佛界，豈有頑騃之佛耶？藏疏既約真如無覺知故凝然，凝然故不隨緣。別理既有覺知，驗非凝然。既非凝然，那不隨緣耶？客遭此詰，兀然失措。余乃語曰：子既不知所以，安得妄有破立？余既憫其無知，乃立數十問，徵其謬破立者，令少知別理有隨緣義。客曰：願聞。

A scholar of our school asked me, saying: 'Benevolent Sir, in your Zhiyao chao, do you establish that suchness in the separate teaching has the meaning of following conditions?' I replied: 'Indeed.' The guest said: 'Now, Master Fazang composed a commentary explaining the Awakening of Faith, exclusively establishing that suchness possesses the two meanings of unchanging and following conditions, stating: "Unchanging is none other than following conditions; following conditions is none other than unchanging." Furthermore, within his five teachings, it belongs to the final teaching and also partakes of the sudden teaching. In contrast, it refutes the Consciousness-Only school's discussion of the principle of suchness, which only addresses unchanging and does not speak of following conditions. Upon close examination, Consciousness-Only is precisely our school's separate teaching. The unchanging and following conditions clarified in those final and sudden teachings is the principle of our school's perfect teaching; how can you, Benevolent Sir, speak of the separate principle following conditions?' I said to him: 'According to what principle did Master Fazang judge that the suchness discussed in Consciousness-Only does not follow conditions?' The guest said: 'The Awakening of Faith Commentary says: The Consciousness-Only school only takes the karmic mark as the origin of the arising of all dharmas; its suchness is devoid of awareness and cognition, statically unchanging, and does not allow for following conditions. It only speaks of the arising and perishing of the eight consciousnesses, which, even when transformed into the four wisdoms, are solely conditioned and cannot be identical to principle; hence the scope of the dharmas it interprets reaches only as far as the karmic consciousness.' I said: 'Indeed. If one says that the nature of suchness possesses awareness and cognition, it can be perfumed and transform, and thus one speaks of following conditions. Since it is solely inert and dull, it does not receive perfuming. Since it does not receive perfuming, how could it follow conditions to transform and create all dharmas?' Thereupon I interrogated him: 'Does the suchness of the separate teaching lack awareness and cognition? If it lacks awareness and cognition, why is it titled buddha-nature? Therefore, the Fuxing says: "The Middle Way clarified in our school's teachings has only two meanings: first, free from annihilationism and eternalism, which belongs to the previous two teachings; second, buddha-nature, which belongs to the latter two teachings." Since the Middle Way of the separate teaching is called buddha-nature, does not "buddha" have the meaning of "awakened"? If the middle principle were inert and dull, fundamentally devoid of awareness and cognition, how could it be the nature of the great awakened fruitional person? Moreover, "nature" has the meaning of being unalterable; if the causal state lacks the meaning of awareness and only arrives at it in the fruitional state, this would be alteration and transformation—how could it be called "nature"? Furthermore, the Miaole says: "Whenever the buddha-fruit is established in the separate teaching, there are three meanings: first, taking the nature of principle as the buddha-realm; second, taking the culmination of fruition as the buddha-realm; third, partially calling it the buddha-realm from the first bhūmi upward." Since the separate teaching establishes a buddha-realm, how could there be an inert and dull buddha? Fazang's commentary already states that because suchness lacks awareness and cognition it is static, and because it is static it does not follow conditions. Since the separate principle possesses awareness and cognition, this proves it is not static. Since it is not static, why would it not follow conditions?' The guest, meeting with this interrogation, was struck dumb and at a loss. I then said to him: 'Since you do not understand the reason, how can you recklessly refute and establish? Having pitied your ignorance, I therefore formulate several dozen questions, interrogating your erroneous refutations and establishments, so that you may somewhat understand that the separate principle has the meaning of following conditions.' The guest said: 'I wish to hear them.'