四明十義書 2.210

2.210

上人本執諸文事法二觀，以不揀境驗不可修。何故此文不待觀境便令精進而修？既云是觀心式樣，驗知諸文事法之觀，雖不揀示陰境，皆須精進而修也。得非己義自破壞耶？又諸文不揀陰境尚可即修，今此玄棄三觀一既已揀境，那得却非修法耶？

Originally, your reverence held that the two types of contemplation—phenomenal and doctrinally appended—across various texts prove to be uncultivable because they do not select the object. Why then does this text enjoin diligent cultivation without awaiting an object of contemplation? Since it is stated to be a model for contemplating the mind, it proves that the contemplations of phenomenal dharma in various texts, although they do not select or indicate the object of the aggregates, must all be cultivated diligently. Has your own doctrine not collapsed of itself? Furthermore, if texts that do not select the object of the aggregates may still be cultivated right away, now that this Profound Meaning's discarding the three contemplations and taking the one has already selected the object, how could it possibly not be a method of cultivation?