廣弘明集 21.14

21.14

南㵎寺慧超諮曰。浮偽起作名之為俗。離於有無名之為真。未審浮偽為當與真一體為當有異。令旨答曰。世人所知生法為體。出世人所知不生為體。依人作論。應如是說。若論真即有是空。俗指空為有。依此義明不得別異。又諮。真俗既云一體。未審真諦亦有起動。為當起動自動不關真諦。令旨又答。真理寂然無起動相。凡夫惑識自橫見起動。又諮。未審有起動而凡夫橫見。無起動而凡夫橫見。令旨又答。若有起動則不名橫見。以無動而見動所以是橫見。又諮。若法無起動則唯應一諦。令旨又答。此理常寂此自一諦。橫見起動復是一諦。准應有兩不得言一。又諮。為有橫見為無橫見。令旨又答。依人為語有此橫見。又諮。若依人語故有橫見。依法為談不應見動。令旨又答。法乃無動。不妨橫者自見其動。

Huichao of Nanjian Temple inquired: "Unreal fabrication is called conventional; transcendence of being and non-being is called ultimate. I do not yet know: is what is unreal and fabricated of one essence with the ultimate, or is it distinct?"
The imperial decree answered: "What worldly people know has arising dharmas as its essence; what world-transcending people know has non-arising as its essence. Discoursing with reference to persons, it should be stated thus. But if one discourses on the ultimate, being itself is emptiness; the conventional points to emptiness as being. Explaining according to this meaning, they cannot be distinct."
[Huichao] also inquired: "Since the ultimate and the conventional are said to be of one essence, I do not yet know: does ultimate truth also have movement and arising, or does movement and arising happen of itself without concerning ultimate truth?"
The imperial decree answered again: "The ultimate principle is quiescent, without the marks of movement and arising. The deluded consciousness of ordinary beings of itself perversely sees movement and arising."
[Huichao] also inquired: "I do not yet know: is there movement and arising that ordinary beings perversely see, or is there no movement and arising yet ordinary beings perversely see it?"
The imperial decree answered again: "If there were movement and arising, it would not be called perverse seeing. Because where there is no movement they see movement, it is therefore perverse seeing."
[Huichao] also inquired: "If dharmas have no movement and arising, then there should only be one truth."
The imperial decree answered again: "This principle is ever quiescent; this of itself is one truth. The perverse seeing of movement and arising is furthermore another truth. In accord [with this], there must be two; one cannot speak of one."
[Huichao] also inquired: "Is there perverse seeing, or is there no perverse seeing?"
The imperial decree answered again: "Speaking with reference to persons, there is this perverse seeing."
[Huichao] also inquired: "If speaking with reference to persons there is perverse seeing, then discoursing with reference to the Dharma one should not see movement."
The imperial decree answered again: "The Dharma is indeed without movement; yet this does not prevent those who are perverted from seeing its movement of themselves."