四明十義書 2.7

2.7

上人被此難故，自知義墮，故漫說云：三種觀心唯止觀約行觀心，即可依之修證。其託事附法，初心不可依之修證，是故諸文有闕有略。或具觀心義者，亦闕觀心一科。破予立三種俱是行門，俱可修證也（三種觀心下，並上人今來義狀中文）。本難約行觀無修證文相，何得以事法觀無修證答之耶？豈非漫指餘義遮掩過非耶？

Because you were challenged with this, Reverend Sir, you recognized yourself that your doctrine had collapsed, and so you spoke at random, saying: 'Among the three kinds of contemplation of the mind, only the contemplation of the mind in accordance with practice in the Zhiguan can be relied upon for cultivation and realization. As for entrusting to phenomena and appending to teachings, a beginner cannot rely upon them for cultivation and realization; therefore, in various texts they are deficient or abbreviated. Or where the meaning of contemplating the mind is fully present, the section on contemplating the mind is also omitted.' You said this to refute my establishing that all three are gates of practice and can all be cultivated and realized. (The text from 'Among the three kinds of contemplation of the mind' onward is all from your present doctrinal statement.) My original objection was that contemplation in accordance with practice lacked textual marks of cultivation and realization; how could you answer it by saying that phenomenal contemplation lacks cultivation and realization? Is this not pointing at random to another meaning to cover up your fault?