觀音玄義記 2.41

2.41

Answer: Subsuming dharmas in terms of the creating mind is easy to understand, so in accord with sūtras and treatises, dharmas are subsumed by mind as the object of contemplation; thus it says "form is created by..." and so forth. Since the Great Master said: "There is only a single form, which is divided into two kinds: form with discrimination and form without discrimination," the intention points to the conscious mind as form with discrimination. What limit could there be to this form creating mind? How can you say that form unequivocally does not create mind? Since it says "there is only a single form," how can it not be said to be wholly form? Furthermore, when arriving at the fruit, direct retribution is manifested within circumstantial retribution, and circumstantial retribution is manifested within direct retribution; lands preaching and dust preaching are identical in the principle of cause and effect—what difference is there between circumstantial and direct? In the stage of principle and name, the mark of non-duality of circumstantial and direct already exists; on what grounds do you cling rigidly to one side having inclusion? The Buddha vehicle of insentient things is fundamentally one substance when explained in terms of mind-inclusion; contemplating from the easy, do not cite this text to prove that form lacks inclusion. The Great Master gave this explanation to make people know that all have inclusion; now to rely on this to restrict it exclusively to the mind—is that grasping the intention, or missing the intention? Is it to cause people to give rise to understanding, or to accord with one's own views?