四明十義書 2.53

2.53

及被問疑書徵其端坐念實相，正是十乘三觀，觀不思議理方得名為念於實相。答疑書釋曰：既圓談之處具理觀義，故引證之，義復何爽。又云：若了光明法性旨已，念念而觀，有何不可。然此之玄文，十境不足（是何不足未知，只欠幾境）、一觀不辨，故修行之人焉得不盡識於境觀修發之相乎。據此兩文，益見心心相續及念實相之文，正明圓談法性可修證也。但未如《止觀》行法周細。後因撿尋《義例》，忽得不明十境十乘是壞驢車之句，遂偏將此句為勢，苦破事法觀門不可修習，并斥予觀心妙道即聞而修之語。及至詰難書以理事二觀並而徵之，事法之觀略談境觀尚是驢車不可修習，十法之文既略無境觀，何乃却能證果入理？以此並之，上人計窮乃不避惡報、固欺聖眼，而翻轉前文，乃謂心心圓解屬於理觀義，念念相續及念實相令依《止觀》修行。且《辨訛》明明結於念念相續及念實相之句屬能圓談十法畢，方云然一家之教委明觀法在乎《止觀》。既云委明，驗知以彼《止觀》為周細觀法，今文理觀亦可修證。然若無答疑書證之，此語往往被上人轉却。其奈明文收掌見在，顯說云證前圓談之處，安可抵踏？上人既被前書證之，還懷慚愧否？

When questioned by my letter of inquiry regarding 'sitting upright and mindful of the true mark'—which refers precisely to the ten vehicles and threefold contemplation, where only by contemplating the inconceivable principle can it be called being mindful of the true mark—your reply to queries explained: 'Since the place of perfect discussion possesses the meaning of principle contemplation, citing it as proof, how could the meaning be flawed?' It also said: 'If one has already comprehended the purport of the dharmatā of light, contemplating it thought after thought, what could be wrong with that? However, in this *Xuanyi* text, the ten objects are deficient (what deficiency is meant is unknown; how many objects are lacking?), and not a single contemplation is discerned; thus how could a practitioner fully know the marks of the cultivation and manifestation of object and contemplation?' Based on these two passages, it is even clearer that the passages on 'mind succeeding mind in continuity' and 'mindful of the true mark' precisely illuminate that perfectly discussing the dharmatā can be cultivated and realized; it is merely not as thorough and detailed as the practice method in the *Zhiguan*. Later, upon searching through the *Yili*, you suddenly came across the phrase that not understanding the ten objects and ten vehicles is like a broken donkey cart, whereupon you used this phrase exclusively as leverage, bitterly demolishing the phenomenal contemplation gate as impossible to cultivate and practice, while also censuring my words that the wondrous path of contemplating the mind is to be practiced as soon as heard. But when my letter of challenge questioned you by setting the two contemplations of principle and phenomena side by side—that if phenomenal contemplation, which briefly discusses object and contemplation, is still a donkey cart and cannot be cultivated and practiced, then since the text on the ten dharmas completely omits object and contemplation, how could it instead realize the fruit and enter the principle?—when challenged with this, your ploys were exhausted. Without dreading bad karmic retribution, you stubbornly deceived the sacred eye and overturned your earlier words, claiming that 'perfect understanding in mind after mind' belongs to the meaning of principle contemplation, while 'continuity in thought after thought' and 'mindful of the true mark' instruct one to cultivate in reliance on the *Zhiguan*. Yet the *Bian'e* clearly concluded the lines on 'continuity in thought after thought' and 'mindful of the true mark' as belonging to the ability to perfectly discuss the ten dharmas to the end, before saying: 'However, our school's detailed explanation of the method of contemplation lies in the *Zhiguan*.' Since it says 'detailed explanation,' this proves that it took the *Zhiguan* to be the thorough and detailed method of contemplation, while the principle contemplation of the present text could also be cultivated and realized. If there were no reply to queries to prove it, these words would easily have been overturned by you. But as clear texts are kept and currently present, explicitly stating that it proves the preceding place of perfect discussion, how can you deny it? Having been verified by your earlier writings, do you feel any shame?