Zongmi’s 宗密 interpretation of Fazang’s 法蔵 Commentary on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna 大乗起信論義記 called forth reactions of dissatisfaction from both Puji 普寂 and Fengtan 鳳潭, while advocated a return to the origin of the thoughts in Fazang’s commentary. However, the understandings of Puji and Fengtan were not consistent with Fazang’s thoughts expressed in his commentary. Fengtan considered that Fazang positioned the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna in Ultimate Teachings 終教 instead of Sudden Teachings 頓教 or Perfect Teachings 円教, but Puji thought that what Fazang referred to as Ultimate Teachings, Sudden Teachings and Perfect Teachings were all Tathāgatagarbha Teachings 如来蔵教. Behind Puji’s opinion is his new interpretation of the five Huayan classifications of the teachings 華厳五教. That is to say, from the perspective of the Perfect Teaching, the five teachings are one. The distinctions between Puji and Fengtan’s opinions are also reflected in their views on Fazang’s commentary. Fengtan regarded it as the only reliable annotated text of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, and therefore excluded other annotated texts. But Puji, while recognized the value of Fazang’s commentary, also recognized the value of other annotated works by Yuanxiao 元暁 and Jingying Huiyuan 静影慧遠. In addition, Fengtan actively absorbed theories from the Tiantai tradition 天台宗 (especially the theory of the nature of evil 性悪論) from the standpoint of Huatian yizhi 華天一致 (that is, the idea that Huayan tradition 華厳宗 and Tiantai Tradition 天台宗 should be consistent); while Puji severely criticized Fengtan and advocated the correct understanding of the theory of the nature of evil.
