四明十義書 2.117

2.117

何者？答疑書自云：以由玄文直顯心性故，論一切三法入心而照。乃結云：此玄所談非但法相圓融，亦乃理觀明白。既云玄文直顯，又云此玄所談，何得今來却是行人自顯、行人自觀？況復前書云純談理觀（若兼附法不名純談），次書云非但法相圓融亦乃理觀明白，豈非翻作正談附法、兼明理觀？則純談理觀自茲永破也。況復自立純談理觀，則正是約行觀心。被難無於陰境十乘，却云託事附法不以陰入為境。

Why is this? Your own *Letter Answering Doubts* states: 'Because the text of the *Xuanyi* directly reveals the mind-nature, it discusses gathering all threefold dharmas into the mind to illuminate them.' You then conclude: 'What this *Xuanyi* discusses is not only the perfect fusion of phenomenal characteristics, but also the clarification of principle contemplation.' Since you said that the text of the *Xuanyi* directly reveals it and also said that it is what this *Xuanyi* discusses, how can you now say instead that it is the practitioner who self-reveals and the practitioner who self-contemplates? Furthermore, your previous letter said that it 'purely discusses principle contemplation' (if it also appends to teachings, it cannot be called 'purely discussing'), while your subsequent letter said, 'Not only are phenomenal characteristics perfectly fused, but also principle contemplation is clarified.' Is this not turning around to make it principally discuss appending to teachings while secondarily clarifying principle contemplation? Thus your 'purely discusses principle contemplation' is permanently shattered from this point onward. What is more, when you personally established 'purely discussing principle contemplation', that was precisely contemplating the mind in terms of practice. When challenged that it lacked the object of the aggregates and the ten vehicles, you turned around and said it 'entrusts to phenomena and appends to teachings, not taking the aggregates and sense-fields as the object'.