廣弘明集 21.22

21.22

中興寺僧懷諮曰。令旨解言。真不離俗。俗不離真。未審真是無相。俗是有相。相無相殊。何得同體。令旨答曰。相與無相此處不同。但凡所見有。即是聖所見無。以此為論。可得無別。又諮。既是一法。云何得見為兩。見既有兩豈是一法。令旨答。理乃不兩。隨物所見。故得有兩。又諮。見既有兩。豈不相違。令旨答。法若實兩。可得相違。法常不兩。人見自兩。就此作論。焉得相乖。又諮。人見有兩。可說兩人。理既是一。豈得有兩。令旨答。理雖不兩而約人成兩。

Senghuai of Zhongxing Temple inquired: "The explanation in the decree states that the ultimate does not depart from the conventional, and the conventional does not depart from the ultimate. I do not yet know: the ultimate is without marks, while the conventional has marks. Marks and marklessness being distinct, how can they share the same essence?"
The imperial decree answered: "Marks and marklessness are here not the same. But what the ordinary person sees as being is precisely what the sage sees as non-being. Discoursing on this basis, they can be non-distinct."
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since it is one dharma, how can it be seen as two? Since the seeings are two, how could it be one dharma?"
The imperial decree answered: "The principle is indeed not two; following what beings see, there can thus be two."
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since the seeings are two, do they not contradict each other?"
The imperial decree answered: "If dharmas were in reality two, they could contradict each other. Dharmas are ever not two; persons' seeings are of themselves two. Discoursing with reference to this, how could they conflict?"
[Senghuai] also inquired: "Since persons' seeings are two, one may speak of two persons. Since principle is one, how could there be two?"
The imperial decree answered: "Although principle is not two, with reference to persons it becomes two."