四明十義書 1.54

1.54

豈知破他全成自破，是誰厥過斯彰？此過既彰，則義宗全壞，將何救於發揮邪說？應知自《發揮》至今來義狀，共得四番轉計、五回墮負，不知此後如何轉計，更令理觀非約行觀耶（上人今既得知理觀專是約行，故今來救曰：十種三法正是止觀約行之觀所顯之理。行人既聞此理，則自能修於理觀。如此救於十法純談理觀，豈可得耶？若論約行所顯，正是心性三千。若謂十種三法不離我心用觀顯發，自是附法之觀，不名理觀也。上人自立觀法，却令文全不談理觀。又云同於《法界次第》者，純談理觀直顯心性，過於妙玄之說何在耶）？

How could you not realize that in refuting the other, you completely brought about your own refutation? Whose fault is it that has now been made manifest? Once this fault has been made manifest, your doctrinal tenet collapses entirely. How will you rescue the erroneous assertions in your Fahui? You should know that from the Fahui down to your present statement of tenets, there have been altogether four shifts in position and five rounds of defeat. I do not know how you will shift your position hereafter to make contemplation of principle once again not be a contemplation [anchored] in practice. (Now that you have learned that contemplation of principle pertains exclusively to [anchored] practice, your present rescue argument claims: "The ten kinds of threefold dharmas are precisely the principle revealed by the contemplation of [anchored] practice in the Zhiguan. When practitioners hear this principle, they can naturally cultivate contemplation of principle." How can such a rescue of the position that "the ten dharmas purely discuss contemplation of principle" be acceptable? If we speak of what is revealed by [anchored] practice, it is precisely the three thousand [realms] of the mind-nature. If you say that the ten kinds of threefold dharmas are not separate from one's own mind and are revealed through the application of contemplation, that is naturally a contemplation appending to teachings; it is not called contemplation of principle. In setting up your own contemplation method, you conversely make the text entirely fail to discuss contemplation of principle. Furthermore, as for your claim that it is identical to the Fajie cidi in purely discussing contemplation of principle and directly revealing the mind-nature, where does its superiority over the explanation in the Miaoxuan lie?)