四明尊者教行錄 3.29

3.29

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'?