四明十義書 2.129

2.129

何者？上人本據正釋無修二性一之義，驗觀心文中修二性一之義為非。今既顯見正釋多是修二性一，則知觀心文初問答稱於正釋，安可更加毀破耶？

Why is this? You originally relied on the claim that the principal explanation lacked the meaning of 'two cultivated and one of the nature' to prove that the meaning of 'two cultivated and one of the nature' in the text on contemplating the mind was wrong. Now, since it is clearly seen that the principal explanation mostly consists of 'two cultivated and one of the nature', one knows that the initial question and answer in the text on contemplating the mind corresponds to the principal explanation; how could you further disparage and destroy it?