印順法師在〈修定－修心與唯心．秘密乘〉一文中，指出「修心」就是「修定」，認為後期如來藏系的形成和發展，和修心、修定有密切關係。本文即是對「修心」就是「修定」此命題進行探討；首先將印順的論點分析、歸結如下：原始佛典即以「修心」來表達「修定」的意涵，又在修心、修定的「譬喻」之下，引發心清淨之思想，此心清淨之思想並與後期佛教常住不滅的信仰，以及如來藏真我說合流而普傳於世，至此佛教的修行也從慧學轉移到定學。從此分析中，看出印順對歷史、史料的客觀考察論述，以證成「修心」何以是「修定」之原由。其次，對印順「修心」就是「修定」作進一步詮解，指出印順此論點背後一定的宗教關懷，即對於後期佛教修行轉向的憂慮，認為晚近中國佛教之衰退多少與此有關。其中包括中國佛教（如禪宗）所談的「修心」，著眼的未必在於「修慧」，而仍是「修定」；而對於「修心（定）」與「修慧」間的不同，包括「無分別心／定」與「無分別智」、「玄理」與「空智」，以及不同譬喻手法等差異，於此也作了初步的對比，以了解印順「修心」就是「修定」而非「修慧」的意義。最後，反思印順「修心」就是「修定」之說，認為不能對此命題作狹隘或極端的解讀，而須置於特定的理解脈絡。事實上，印順亦試圖重新導向、回歸或轉化如來藏說，如認同部份經論將「佛性」緊扣「空性」的解釋，使「修心」不只是「修定」，而能進及「修慧」。此外，印順亦認為「修心」達於究竟時亦達「修慧」之解脫境，可知「修心」與「修慧」間未必是截然二分的。如此，兼及實然與應然的兩面，顯示印順在學者求真求實以及僧人之宗教理想間的平衡拿捏，而以此來掌握「修心」就是「修定」的論點，應是較為公允完整的。

In his article ＂Cultivation of Mind and Meditative Stabilization, Mind-Only and Esoteric Vehicle,＂ Master Yin-Shun relies on historical texts to justify his claim that cultivation of mind is in fact no different to cultivation of meditative stabilization, and argues that the formation and later development of the tathāgatagarbha doctrine is closely linked to this practice. The author of this present article first analyzes this claim by summing up Yin-Shun's viewpoints as follows: (1) In certain texts of Early Buddhism, the meaning and significance of the ＂cultivation of meditative stabilization＂ is often conveyed through use of the term ＂cultivation of mind.＂ (2) Similes pertaining to the cultivation of mind and meditative stabilization subsequently give rise to the idea of ＂pure mind＂-a concept confluent with both the belief in ＂eternal and inextinguishable being＂ as found in later Buddhism, and the theory of ＂true self＂ advanced by proponents of the tathāgatagarbha. (3) As these theories become widespread the focus of Buddhist practice gradually shifts from learning of wisdom to that of meditative stabilization. The author then notes the deep religious concern behind Yin-Shun's claims that the decline of Chinese Buddhism may have in part been due to this shift. The author also suggests that the cultivation of mind in Chinese Buddhism, like Chán Buddhism, similarly focuses on cultivating meditative stabilization rather than cultivating wisdom. The author further draws a preliminary comparison between mind and meditative stabilization cultivations and wisdom cultivation with different kinds of similes as well as differences between ＂non-discriminative mind＂ and ＂non-discriminative wisdom＂ and between ＂profound theory＂ and ＂the wisdom realizing Emptiness.＂ Finally, the author argues that the view that cultivating mind is cultivating meditative stabilization cannot be interpreted in either a narrow or extreme sense, but rather needs to be understood within the context of Yin-Shun's attempts to reform tathāgatagarbha teachings and his adherence to the view that Buddha Nature is closely related to Emptiness. One outcome of this is that the mind cultivation shall entail wisdom cultivation rather than be limited to meditative stabilization. Since they are not dichotomous, Yin-Shun considers the liberation achieved through the perfection of mind cultivation to be consistent with the liberation achieved through wisdom cultivation. In giving due consideration to both the practical and theoretical aspects of Buddhism, Yin-Shun tries to balance his scholarly endeavors with his life as a Buddhist monk.