四明十義書 2.229

2.229

何者，既知從一開三，三無定三。此玄直將三教對圓而論，未說權從實出，那能免於差別之執？何故彼文却須觀心融之，此文却不用觀心融之耶？

Why is this? Because once one knows that three are opened from one, the three are not definitively three. This Profound Meaning directly takes the three teachings and discusses them against the Perfect, without saying that the expedient emerges from the real—how could it avoid clinging to differences? Why then would that text need contemplation of the mind to harmonize them, while this text does not need contemplation of the mind to harmonize them?