四明尊者教行錄 3.27

3.27

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?