四明十義書 2.237

2.237

上人本立此玄十種三法，純談理觀直顯心性，超過《妙玄》十法；今却全同《法界次第》凡夫二乘法相也。彼文雖有大乘法相，豈學三觀者不以凡小法相歷心而修耶？然又推與行人說，灼然是上人妄語。何者？答疑書明說以由玄文直顯心性，故於一念心中融諸法相橫竪而照。復自云：應知此玄所談，非但法相圓融，亦乃理觀明白。既云玄文直顯，又云此玄所談，何得今來剛然轉作，行人自攝法相歸心，自於止觀橫竪而照？又本立此玄純談理觀，何得却云正明附法兼明理觀耶？如此將於至教輕侮戲弄，對於諸聖妄言綺語，為無來報耶？為無見報耶？若觀答疑書此一段邪說，恐大師四辨以劫壽陳，其謗法欺心之過亦不可盡。

You, Venerable Sir, originally established that the ten kinds of threefold dharmas in this Xuanyi purely expound principle contemplation and directly reveal the mind-nature, surpassing the ten dharmas of the Miaoxuan. Now, however, [your reading] is completely identical to the ordinary beings' and two vehicles' doctrinal characteristics in the Fajie cidi. Although that text does contain Mahāyāna doctrinal characteristics, could it be that those who study the threefold contemplation do not apply the ordinary and Hīnayāna doctrinal characteristics across the mind to cultivate? Furthermore, attributing this to practitioners is clearly a falsehood on your part, Venerable Sir. Why is this? The Letter Resolving Doubts clearly stated that because the text of the Xuanyi directly reveals the mind-nature, one therefore fuses all doctrinal characteristics within a single thought-moment of mind and contemplates them horizontally and vertically. You also said yourself: 'One should know that what is expounded in this Xuanyi is not only the perfect fusion of doctrinal characteristics, but also that principle contemplation is made clear.' Since you stated that the text of the Xuanyi directly reveals it, and also stated that this is what is expounded in this Xuanyi, how can you now stubbornly shift and claim that practitioners themselves gather doctrinal characteristics into the mind and themselves contemplate them horizontally and vertically in the Zhiguan? Moreover, you originally established that this Xuanyi purely expounds principle contemplation; how can you now say instead that it primarily clarifies appending to teachings and only concurrently clarifies principle contemplation? To slight, insult, and make sport of the supreme teaching in this way, uttering falsehoods and frivolous talk in the presence of the sages—is there to be no future retribution? Is there to be no retribution in this very life? If one looks at this section of heterodox discourse in your Letter Resolving Doubts, I fear that even if the Great Master, endowed with the four unhindered eloquence, were to lay it out for an eon's lifespan, your offenses of slandering the Dharma and deceiving your own mind could never be fully told.