四明十義書 2.169

2.169

又且縱偏小之教，文不即理故，非對境明觀；此圓談法性，文理既合得名觀境者。且《妙玄》豈文理不合耶？何故教理之下更立觀心一科？

Furthermore, even granting that in the biased and Small Teachings, the text is not identical to principle, and thus they do not clarify contemplation in relation to an object; if here, perfectly discussing dharmatā, text and principle are already united so that it can be called the contemplated object: does Miaoxuan not have text and principle united? Why then does it establish another section on contemplating the mind below teaching and principle?