廣弘明集 21.14

21.14

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."