四明十義書 1.166

1.166

若謂《珠指》判此兩門不當，則兩卷何足可依釋不二門耶？儻若有乖破觀心文，理當全謬。然《示珠指》灼然無一可取，但上人今扶樹彼見，則不合特違也。然學無常師，理長則就，有何不可。乾竺捨邪歸正者何限。但若立義少勝，何讓於師；既所譚更劣，何須改作。

If you say that the Zhuzhi's judgment of these two gates is improper, then how could those two fascicles be relied upon to explain the Non-duality Gate? If it contradicts the text on refuting contemplation of the mind, it would reasonably be entirely erroneous. In fact, the Shizhu zhi clearly has not a single thing worthy of adoption; yet since your reverence now supports that view, you ought not specifically contradict it. However, in learning there is no permanent teacher; where principle is superior, one follows it—what could be wrong with that? In India, how could those who abandoned the heterodox and returned to the orthodox be limited? But if what you establish is slightly superior, why yield to your teacher? Yet since what you discuss is even more inferior, why must you alter it?