四明十義書 2.32

2.32

又云：凡云六即即具觀心義者，且文中不將六即判行人修證之位，乃是約之明其果法甚深也。又《妙玄》十種三法，段段約六即判位。上人又云：彼文合有觀心一釋。此則六即之後須有觀心。那可輒廢？又云十種三法直顯心性故具觀心義。且今來義狀，已甘十種談於果法既非直顯心性，故不具觀心之義明矣。又云：十種三法並我一念橫竪照之故具觀心之義。其如文中全無攝歸一念之文，又乏觀照之語，安得云已具觀心義耶？又云：以一理貫之故具觀心義。其如《妙玄》十法，豈不以一理貫之。既合更立觀心，則一理貫之又非觀心義也。又將三法例彼《淨名疏》釋法無眾生云具觀心義。其如彼文，約研心法作觀，明乎三脫故具觀心義。今文正就果法示之，全未約心法說之，那得具觀心義耶？又云：凡論三法皆闕觀心。此更不可，《妙玄》十種三法之後，因何合有觀心耶？如釋淨無垢稱約三脫三身，釋後又示觀心。今來又撰一義云：十種三法只是三諦異名，三諦唯心所具，久修者即以正觀歷之。未修者既知十種三法是佛所證（直顯心性於茲永破），乃能於彼止觀修行。

Furthermore, he says: 'Whenever the six identities are mentioned, they already possess the meaning of contemplating the mind.' Yet in the text, the six identities are not used to judge the stages of the practitioner's cultivation and realization, but are used to clarify the extreme profundity of the fruition dharmas. Furthermore, in the ten kinds of threefold dharmas in the Miaoxuan, section by section the stages are judged according to the six identities. The Venerable One also says: 'That text appropriately has an explanation of contemplating the mind.' This means that after the six identities, there must be contemplation of the mind. How can it be casually abolished? He also says that because the ten kinds of threefold dharmas directly reveal the mind-nature, they possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. Yet in the recent statement of points, he has already conceded that the ten kinds discuss fruition dharmas; since they do not directly reveal the mind-nature, it is clear that they do not possess the meaning of contemplating the mind. He also says: 'Because the ten kinds of threefold dharmas illuminate my single thought-moment horizontally and vertically, they possess the meaning of contemplating the mind.' Yet within the text there is no passage at all gathering them back to a single thought-moment, nor is there any phrase of contemplative illumination; how can it be said that they already possess the meaning of contemplating the mind? He also says: 'Because they are unified by a single principle, they possess the meaning of contemplating the mind.' Yet as for the ten dharmas in the Miaoxuan, are they not unified by a single principle? Since it is appropriate to further establish contemplation of the mind there, being unified by a single principle is again not the meaning of contemplating the mind. He also takes the threefold dharmas to be analogous to the commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa explaining 'the dharma is without sentient beings' as possessing the meaning of contemplating the mind. Yet in that text, contemplation is practiced according to investigating the mind-dharma, clarifying the three liberations, which is why it possesses the meaning of contemplating the mind. The present text demonstrates it precisely in terms of fruition dharmas, and does not explain it at all in terms of mind-dharmas; how could it possess the meaning of contemplating the mind? He also says: 'Whenever the threefold dharmas are discussed, contemplation of the mind is always absent.' This is even more untenable. Why should there appropriately be contemplation of the mind after the ten kinds of threefold dharmas in the Miaoxuan? For instance, when explaining the clean and undefiled name in terms of the three liberations and three bodies, after the explanation it again demonstrates contemplation of the mind. Now he invents yet another point, saying: 'The ten kinds of threefold dharmas are merely different names for the three truths; the three truths are inherently possessed solely by the mind; those who have long practiced directly run them through correct contemplation; those who have not yet practiced, having realized that the ten kinds of threefold dharmas are what the Buddha realized (the claim of directly revealing the mind-nature is hereby refuted forever), are then able to cultivate practice in that Zhiguan.'