四明十義書 2.153

2.153

且如《釋籤》云：心法眾生法，在佛心中則定屬果。佛法心法，若在眾生心中，則通因果。佛法生法，在心法中，則定屬因。豈非互具互在故，則無差別；事用既殊、迷悟宛爾，則須論差。豈可纔聞佛法該攝心法，便令佛法在因？豈可心法具佛法故，便令心法是果耶？故荊溪云約理無差，差約事用。故修觀之者，須依心法為境而修觀也。觀心即性，性攝無外，等佛等生，故云遊心法界如虛空，則知諸佛之境界。既云遊心法界，知是觀心入理。理攝生佛，乃知佛境界也。豈可但云無差，三法混亂耶？若佛法便是心法，今家觀心之名因何而立耶？

Furthermore, as the Shiqian states: The mind-dharma and sentient-being-dharma, within the Buddha's mind, definitely pertain to the fruit. The Buddha-dharma and mind-dharma, if within the sentient being's mind, pertain broadly to cause and fruit. The Buddha-dharma and sentient-being-dharma, within the mind-dharma, definitely pertain to the cause. Is it not that because they mutually contain and mutually reside in one another, there is no distinction; yet because their phenomenal functions differ and delusion and awakening are vividly distinct, difference must be discussed? How could it be that merely hearing that the Buddha-dharma encompasses the mind-dharma, one immediately places the Buddha-dharma in the cause? How could it be that because the mind-dharma possesses the Buddha-dharma, one immediately makes the mind-dharma the fruit? Therefore Jingxi said: In terms of principle there is no distinction; distinction is in terms of phenomenal function. Hence the practitioner of contemplation must rely on the mind-dharma as the object to cultivate contemplation. Contemplating the mind is precisely [contemplating] the nature; the nature encompasses without exterior, being equal to Buddha and equal to sentient beings. Thus it is said: 'Roaming the mind in the dharma-realm like empty space, one then knows the realm of the Buddhas.' Since it says 'roaming the mind in the dharma-realm', we know this is contemplating the mind to enter principle. Principle encompasses sentient beings and Buddhas, and only then does one know the Buddha's realm. How could one merely say 'non-distinction' and confound the three dharmas? If the Buddha-dharma were precisely the mind-dharma, on what basis would the designation 'contemplating the mind' have been established by our lineage?