四明十義書 2.102

2.102

乃至詰難書覈定觀心二字，還是許觀妄心、不許觀耶？如彼文引《金錍》不變則萬法俱理，隨緣則萬法俱事，輒不可云諸法是事，心獨是理。但為下界眾生多著於色，故且多令觀於唯心，非謂心獨是理。故知文中若云攝法歸心，亦且得立所觀之境。況文無一句立心為境，境尚未成，觀非所議，故此十法觀之與心二義俱闕，如何堅執具觀心義耶（金錍下皆詰難書文）？此之文意，豈是不許觀於妄心耶？

Furthermore, when the letter of cross-examination determined the meaning of the two words 'contemplating the mind,' was it permitting contemplation of the deluded mind or not permitting contemplation? As that text cites from the Jinbi: 'In unchangingness, the myriad phenomena are all principle; in following conditions, the myriad phenomena are all phenomena. One must by no means say that all phenomena are phenomena while the mind alone is principle. It is only because sentient beings of the lower realms are mostly attached to form that they are largely directed to contemplate mind-only; it does not mean that the mind alone is principle. Therefore we know that if the text speaks of encompassing phenomena and reducing them to the mind, it can also tentatively establish the object to be contemplated. What is more, the text lacks a single sentence establishing the mind as the object; when the object is not yet established, contemplation is out of the question. Hence, these ten dharmas lack both meanings: contemplation and the mind. How can one stubbornly insist that it possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind?' (From 'Jinbi' onward, all are words from the letter of cross-examination.) How could the meaning of this text mean not permitting contemplation of the deluded mind?