四明十義書 2.25

2.25

若此二意得成，則今文觀心一科越不可廢也。何者？今文若無觀心一釋，將何以示久修者附法觀門扶於本習？若無觀心一釋，將何以令始習者忘其封著，指示於止觀中修行？又久修者本習既揀於陰境修觀，今文既亦揀境修觀，恰稱本習。何得約此謬判？又既令初學知於止觀修行，彼既揀境明觀，今文預揀示之，令知要切之處。何得約此謬判耶？豈以太稱本習指示太親而以為謬耶？

If these two intentions hold, then the section on contemplating the mind in the present text is all the more indispensable. Why? If the present text lacked the explanation of contemplating the mind, by what means would it show long-practicing ones the contemplation gate appending to teachings to support their original training? If it lacked the explanation of contemplating the mind, by what means would it cause beginners to abandon their rigid attachments and point them to cultivating practice in the Zhiguan? Furthermore, since the original training of long-practicing ones selects the object of the aggregates to cultivate contemplation, and the present text also selects the object to cultivate contemplation, it precisely accords with their original training. How can one make a erroneous judgment based on this? Moreover, since it causes beginners to know to cultivate practice in the Zhiguan, and that [text] selects the object to clarify contemplation, the present text pre-selects and demonstrates it to them to let them know the essential point. How can one make an erroneous judgment based on this? Could it be that because it accords too well with their original training and points it out too directly, it is considered an error?