四明十義書 2.203

2.203

蓋由上人於答疑書中，專引此文證圓談法性純是理觀，豈非全不達陰識為法性，只取法性兩字便為理觀也。全不曉能達是十乘，所達是陰識，所顯是法性。況達在文，尚未解言趣。陰識既略，何由懸解？以此暗昧故，將佛果法相妄為理觀十乘。不請笑茲引文，蓋旅人先笑後必號咷也。何者？既抑彼約行觀法不依陰識，則觀無所託、理無所顯，乃用茲非義廢乎觀心。既毀方等真觀、法說非法，當生必招耕舌之苦，現世又多疑法之愁，何得苦中而自作樂，頻頻撫掌強笑耶？若據上人前後邪說，皆為不善消文。今且寄此一二，略示愆失耳。

Because the Superior, in your Letter Answering Doubts, specifically cited this passage to prove that 'a perfect exposition of dharmatā is purely principle contemplation'—is this not completely failing to understand that the consciousness of the aggregates is dharmatā, and merely seizing upon the two characters 'dharmatā' to be principle contemplation? You fail entirely to understand that what is able to penetrate is the ten vehicles, what is penetrated is the consciousness of the aggregates, and what is revealed is the dharmatā. What is more, although 'penetrate' appears in the text, you do not yet understand the import of the words. Since the consciousness of the aggregates is omitted [there], how could you comprehend it beforehand? Due to such ignorance, you falsely take the doctrinal marks of the Buddha-fruition to be the ten vehicles of principle contemplation. Please do not laugh at this cited passage, for a traveler who laughs first must surely wail afterward. Why is this? Since you suppress the practice-oriented contemplation method as not relying on the consciousness of the aggregates, the contemplation has nothing to rest upon and the principle has nothing through which to be revealed, and you then use this illegitimate doctrine to abolish contemplating the mind. Having denigrated the true contemplation of the Vaipulya and preached what is not Dharma as Dharma, in your future life you will surely incur the agony of having your tongue plowed, and in your present life you also suffer much anxiety of doubting the Dharma. How can you make merry in the midst of suffering, repeatedly clapping your hands and forcing a laugh? If we judge by the Superior's earlier and later heterodox theories, they are all due to being unskilled at interpreting texts. For now, I take these one or two instances merely to point out your errors briefly.