四明十義書 2.66

2.66

何者？若謂制心從理便一向以理釋名者，則令事理不分，又使理無顯處。若謂制心從理便不得約事釋名者，《止觀》豈不制心從理耶？何故以陰入釋心耶？何故以煩惱等釋心耶？何故《四念處》節節云一念無明心耶？何故法華三昧以現前一念妄想釋心耶？此等真教莫不彰人制心從理否？荊溪立於無情有性，正為顯圓妄染即佛性，旁遮偏指清淨真如。《珠指》正當《金錍》所遮。云何將所遮之義為能釋之文？如以毒刺損眾生之佛眼，殊非《金錍》決四眼之惑膜。

Why is this? If you claim that restraining the mind in accordance with principle means explaining the term solely in terms of principle, you will blur phenomena and principle, and moreover leave principle with nowhere to be revealed. If you claim that restraining the mind in accordance with principle precludes explaining the term in terms of phenomena, does the Zhiguan not restrain the mind in accordance with principle? Why, then, does it explain the mind by the aggregates and sense bases? Why does it explain the mind by the afflictions and the like? Why does the Siniandachu repeatedly say, at every turn, "the single thought-moment of ignorant mind"? Why does the Lotus Samādhi explain the mind as "the presently manifested single thought-moment of deluded conceptualization"? Do these authentic teachings not demonstrate people restraining the mind in accordance with principle? When Jingxi established that insentient beings possess the nature, it was precisely to reveal that in the Perfect [Teaching] deluded defilement is itself the buddha-nature, and incidentally to refute exclusively pointing to pure true suchness. The Zhuzhi falls squarely under what the Jinbi refuted. How can you take what was refuted as an explanatory text? That is like using a poisonous thorn to injure the buddha-eye of sentient beings, which is completely contrary to the Jinbi's removal of the cataract of delusion from the four eyes.