四明十義書 2.174

2.174

且彼無作四諦，還全性起修否？還該世出世因果否？況復上人本立此玄十種三法純明理觀直顯心性。理觀者，則是《占察經》中實相之觀，正當常坐等揀境觀理十乘，若少附法相、稍託事相，不名純談理觀。既云純談理觀，若全同《淨名疏》附法觀者。此則又成純談附法觀也。若同《請觀音疏》託事觀者，此則又成純談託事觀也。又既云直顯心性，若也稍託事附法，則不名直顯心性。然此玄十種三法，任上人多門巧救，終不得同《淨名》、《觀音疏》事法之觀。若得成於事法之觀，則全不成純談理觀，又全不成直顯心性。

Now, do those uncreated four truths not entirely activate cultivation from the nature? Do they not encompass mundane and supramundane cause and fruit? Furthermore, your Reverence originally asserted that the ten kinds of threefold dharmas in this Xuan[yi] purely elucidate principle contemplation, directly revealing the mind-nature. Principle contemplation is precisely the contemplation of true reality in the Zhancha jing, corresponding directly to the ten vehicles of selecting the object and contemplating principle in the constantly sitting [samādhi] and so forth; if it slightly appends doctrinal marks or somewhat entrusts to phenomenal marks, it is not called purely discussing principle contemplation. Since you claim it purely discusses principle contemplation, if it is completely identical to the contemplation appended to teachings in the Jingming shu, then this would turn out to be purely discussing contemplation appended to teachings. If it is identical to contemplation entrusting to phenomena in the Qing Guanyin shu, then this would turn out to be purely discussing contemplation entrusting to phenomena. Moreover, since you claim it directly reveals the mind-nature, if it also somewhat entrusts to phenomena or appends to teachings, it cannot be called directly revealing the mind-nature. However, with the ten kinds of threefold dharmas in this Xuan[yi], no matter how many doors of clever rescue your Reverence employs, it ultimately cannot be identical to the phenomenal contemplation of the Jingming and Guanyin commentaries. If it could succeed as phenomenal contemplation, it would completely fail as purely discussing principle contemplation, and completely fail as directly revealing the mind-nature.