四明十義書 2.166

2.166

及至被詰難書以此義徵之，上人既知此玄十法全無依報事境可託則事觀不成，遂轉執譬喻為境，以十種三法為觀，又以能詮教相為境，所詮三法為觀。須知此之兩說全無所以。何者？夫深法難解，假喻易彰，故用譬類曉喻深法，使稟教者生乎信解。何曾以能譬所譬為能觀所觀耶？

When interrogated and questioned on this meaning by my Letter of Inquiries, your Reverence, realizing that these ten dharmas in this Xuan[yi] entirely lack any phenomenal object of environmental retribution to entrust to—and thus phenomenal contemplation cannot be established—shifted your attachment to making the metaphor the object and the ten kinds of threefold dharmas the contemplation, and further making the teaching characteristics that express them the object and the threefold dharmas expressed the contemplation. It must be known that neither of these two assertions has any basis whatsoever. Why? Profound dharmas are difficult to understand, whereas borrowed metaphors are easy to illuminate; therefore analogies are used to elucidate profound dharmas so that recipients of the teaching may give rise to faith and understanding. When were the metaphor and the object of the metaphor ever made the contemplating [subject] and contemplated [object]?