四明十義書 1.168

1.168

彼文揀示識心修乎十乘，今方一觀，那得改觀觀於外境。破遍文末例餘陰入尚恐太早，合在識陰十乘之後。但為通塞已去通約五陰修觀，故從破遍文末例餘陰入也。況彼顯說從初至此單約識心，從此已去乃至離愛具約五陰方成觀相。荊溪如此顯然指示，從初至此單約陰心修觀，那得特違宗祖，剛然將此觀成歷法之文拗作外境修觀耶？

That text selects and points to the consciousness-mind to cultivate the ten vehicles. Now, when only one contemplation has just been reached, how could one change contemplations to contemplate external objects? Paralleling this to the remaining aggregates and sense-entrances at the end of the text on Pervasive Refutation was already feared to be too early, and should properly belong after the ten vehicles of the consciousness-aggregate. It was only because from "penetration and obstruction" onward, contemplation is cultivated broadly with reference to the five aggregates that the remaining aggregates and sense-entrances are drawn as parallels from the end of the text on Pervasive Refutation. How much more so when that [text] explicitly states that from the beginning up to this point it is solely based on the consciousness-mind, and only from here onward up to "freedom from craving" does contemplation become fully complete based on the five aggregates! Since Jingxi has clearly indicated in this manner that from the beginning up to this point contemplation is cultivated solely based on the aggregate of mind, how could you deliberately oppose the patriarchal founder and obstinately twist this passage on the contemplation's completion passing through phenomena into a cultivation of contemplation on external objects?