四明十義書 2.227

2.227

且答疑書自云不以法性融故，合有觀心觀前十法。何時曾云合立觀心觀於三教三軌？何曾云觀於援引文相？如斯謾說，欲哧三歲孩兒，還肯信否？此乃是公欺諸方達士、顯誷滿空聖人，還略知慚愧不？又云《妙玄》略觀心之語者，謂三法直是所觀一理，況具修性之說，義與觀心相應。若以三法貫通，義當易見，故略之爾。是則《妙玄》十法，法性貫之也。因何前說不以法性貫之？豈非前說不以法性貫之，今說乃以法性貫之；前說須立觀心，今說不須立觀心；前說觀於圓教十法，今說觀於三教三軌。及觀援引文相，則前說與今說顯然相違、灼然墮負。上人若是君子之心、為法之意，必應首伏，捨短從長，終不將無義之語抵諱分疏也。斯之謗法之過，皆由不閑究理之所致也。然諸所說，皆為不善究理，且寄此中說耳。

Now, the Letter Answering Doubts itself stated that because they are not harmonized through dharmatā, there ought to be contemplation of the mind to contemplate the preceding ten dharmas. When did it ever say that one ought to establish contemplation of the mind to contemplate the three tracks of the three teachings? When did it ever say to contemplate the text of citations? Telling such falsehoods—do you wish to intimidate a three-year-old child, and would they still believe it? This is openly deceiving the accomplished scholars of all quarters and visibly deceiving the holy ones who fill empty space. Do you have even a little sense of shame? Furthermore, you say that the Miaoxuan's omission of the phrase 'contemplation of the mind' means that the threefold dharma is directly the single principle to be contemplated, and moreover, because it contains the explanation of cultivation and nature, its meaning corresponds to contemplation of the mind; if one interfuses through the threefold dharma, the meaning should be easily seen, and so it was merely omitted. If so, then the ten dharmas of the Miaoxuan are interfused through dharmatā! Why did you previously say they are not interfused through dharmatā? Is it not that your previous statement claimed they are not interfused through dharmatā, whereas your present statement claims they are interfused through dharmatā; your previous statement claimed one must establish contemplation of the mind, whereas your present statement claims one does not need to establish contemplation of the mind; your previous statement contemplated the ten dharmas of the Perfect Teaching, whereas your present statement contemplates the three tracks of the three teachings and contemplates the text of citations? Thus your previous statement and your present statement clearly contradict each other, and you have plainly fallen into defeat! If your reverence possessed the mind of a gentleman and the intention for the Dharma, you would certainly submit yourself, discard the inferior and follow the superior, and never use meaningless words to deny and make excuses. This fault of slandering the Dharma was entirely brought about by not being skilled in inquiring into principle. However, all that you have spoken stemmed from failing to inquire properly into principle, so I merely lodge it here to speak of it.