佛祖統紀 29.17

29.17

圭峯之釋修門。未免妄談止觀（密師注法界觀修字云。止觀熏習造詣。鎧菴質之云。不知是何止觀。若次第者。到何位斷何惑顯何理。若一心者。何位圓融而修。何位圓融而證）自餘著述。矛盾尤多（賢首既自立五教。至起信論明觀法。則云。修之次第。如天台摩訶止觀。清涼既宗賢首。及疏華嚴。則引用天台性善性惡三觀三德一念三千之文。然則教之與觀。進退兩失）欲別其源。撰賢首宗教志（賢首華嚴疏。起信鈔。圭峯圓覺疏。長水楞伽疏。所立義門。亦覺不同）。

Guifeng's explanation of the gate of cultivation inevitably indulged in reckless talk regarding śamatha-vipaśyanā. (Master Zongmi, annotating the word 'cultivation' in the Contemplation of the Dharmadhātu, said: 'Cultivation and learning through śamatha-vipaśyanā reaches perfection.' Kaian challenged this, saying: 'It is unknown what kind of śamatha-vipaśyanā this is. If it is gradual, at what stage are what delusions severed and what principle revealed? If it is the single mind, at what stage is there integrated cultivation, and at what stage is there integrated realization?') As for the remaining writings, their contradictions are even more numerous. (Xianshou had himself established the five teachings, yet when it came to explaining the method of contemplation in the Treatise on Awakening of Faith, he said: 'The stages of cultivation are like those in the Mohe zhiguan of Tiantai.' Qingliang, having taken Xianshou as his authority, nevertheless quoted in his commentary on the Avataṃsaka Tiantai passages on innate good and innate evil, the three contemplations, the three virtues, and the three thousand realms in a single thought. Thus both regarding the teaching and the contemplation, they fall short coming and going.) Wishing to distinguish their sources, I composed the Record of the Teaching and School of Xianshou. (The義門 established in Xianshou's Avataṃsaka Commentary, the Awakening of Faith Subcommentary, Guifeng's Perfect Enlightenment Commentary, and Changshui's Laṅkāvatāra Commentary are also perceived to be different.)