四分律行事鈔資持記 1.127

1.127

次明異執，標中，有人謂聰覆二師，首傳《四分》，祖師不合科為異執。今謂異執之言，目其各計，有何毀斥！縱容妄解，豈不思所稟首師，亦列于後。又前云五部異執，則所宗部主亦在其中，又何獨黨於聰覆耶！非聖人者無法，即斯人也。

Next, clarifying divergent attachments: in the heading, someone claimed that since the two masters Cong and Fu were the first to transmit the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, the Patriarchal Master should not have categorized them under "divergent attachments." We say now: the term "divergent attachments" designates their individual tenets; what disparagement is there in this? If one permits such erratic explanations, does one not consider that Master Shou, from whom [our master] received instruction, is also listed later? Furthermore, as it was said earlier that there are divergent attachments among the five schools, the founding masters of the schools one adheres to are also among them; why then should one show partiality only toward Cong and Fu? Those who deny the sage have no Dharma—this applies precisely to such people.