四明十義書 2.40

2.40

故彼文云：一念靈知性體常寂。又云：一念真知妙體。又云：並我一念清淨靈知等。又答疑書云：法性無外，即我一念。兼以果證之理，謂是直顯心性。《辨訛》以一理貫之，謂為理觀等。此等豈非直以理性釋於心法，實不曾以妄念即真而釋，實不曾以觀妄成真而解。若元知者，何故《示珠指》曲拗《妙玄》心定在因之句作心非因果釋耶？

Thus that text states: 'The nature-essence of a single thought-moment of numinous knowing is constantly tranquil.' It also states: 'The wondrous essence of a single thought-moment of true knowing.' It also states: 'Identical to my single thought-moment of pure, numinous knowing,' and so forth. Moreover, your reply to queries states: 'The dharmatā has nothing outside it; it is identical to my single thought-moment.' Furthermore, taking the principle of fruitional realization, you called it 'directly revealing the mind-nature.' The *Bian'e* stringed it together with the one principle and called it 'principle contemplation,' and so forth. How could these not be direct interpretations of the mind-dharma in terms of the nature of principle, never having interpreted it as deluded thought being identical to the true, never having explained it as contemplating delusion to bring about the true? If you had known this all along, why did the *Shizhu zhi* twist the phrase in the *Miaoxuan* that 'the mind is definitively in the cause' to interpret it as 'the mind is neither cause nor fruit'?