三教书籍，言异旨同，修士勿成门户之见。相类者，宜参观。不相类者，亦当善悟。悟理之文，
有可资于治平之用。经济之学，有足取为修养之法，互相考证，获益匪浅。如株守一家、即抹杀一切，
定非通儒。演说二经，语语皆本，口传心授，间有采之别集者，皆三教先哲旧说，非出臆造云然也。
道释二家，今世多知二而一。惟儒与释，判然两途。其不能合者，由后学分门别户致之耳，读孔氏
书者，记诵词章无论也。即讲实学，亦多争立功名，轻视修养，高谈性命，无益身心，不知六经四子
书，所载养身养心之谓何也。读释老书者，演法持戒无论也。即讲性定，亦每专求修炼，罔顾家国，
实宗杨墨。托言释道，不知道藏佛藏所载慈悲誓愿之谓何也。二者皆偏，孔圣非无修养，释道非无事
功，异曲同工，异派同源。同者格致诚正之功，异者修齐治平之迹，其实一理也。粤稽混沌初开，
自盘古以迄三代，中国并无儒道之分，凡学道之士，无一非读五帝三王时书，皆儒也，即道也。道
家甚称黄帝彭祖，老聃之学孔子亦尝采取之窃比
之，访问之，赞叹之，何尝攻辩。至汉天师出，而儒道始分焉。不知天师道也，亦儒也。分之者，
后世之立宗派也。又秦汉以前，中国疆域不广，只占天下十分之二。沙海外数千百国，孔教难及，天
生然灯，演教中古，次出释迦，宣化西域，授受相传二十八代，至达摩祖师来游东土。外夷佛教分
支，有黄教红教之别，达摩祖师坐化西归。中国佛教别派，有临济，曹洞之分；亦如儒有南北学，
汉宋学；道有正一派，龙门派之类也。种种流派，法异旨同，派分道合，其一生万，万合一之，理俱
无殊，不主中道，能传之远而且久乎？！其间不过各宗各派，各有异同，各守各传，各有得失。
有精粗纯驳之分，有浅深真伪之别，皆未可浓非也。今三教并立，鲜能贯通，主此奴彼，主彼奴此。
讲修炼者，呼儒家为俗，守章句者，目释道为谬。自相高尚，互相攻击，甚至同室操戈，后先矛盾，
真可笑也！约而言之∶儒曰执中，释曰守中，道曰玄中，非三教一贯而何？故推阐斯道，不得不合三
教之理而言，非故以释道之法，混乱圣经也。抑思圣人之言，无所不包，释道身心性命之学，又奚
不可摘取，而证明乎？！
三教的书籍，虽然言辞各异，但宗旨相同，修习的人不要形成门户之见。内容相似的，应当互相参考；内容不相似的，也应当善于领悟。阐述道理的文献，有的可以借鉴用于治理国家、平定天下的用途；经世济民的学问，有足够值得采纳作为修养的方法，互相考证，获益匪浅。如果拘泥于一家之说，就抹杀其他一切，这绝对不是通达的儒者。
演说这两部经典（指《洗髓经》与《易筋经》，此处泛指相关典籍），句句都有本源，口传心授，偶尔采录自其他文集的，都是三教先哲的旧说，并非凭空臆造如此。
道教和佛教两家，当今世人大多知道它们是二而一的。只有儒家与佛教，被截然分为两条路。它们不能融合的原因，是由于后世学者分门别户造成的罢了。读孔子书籍的人，不论那些只知记诵词章的，即使是讲求实学的人，也多争立功名，轻视身心修养，高谈性命理论，对身心无益，不知道六经和四书中所记载的养身养心究竟是什么意思。
读佛家、道家书籍的人，不论那些演绎法术、持守戒律的，即使是讲心性定力的人，也往往专门追求修炼，不顾家国大事，实际上效法的是杨朱和墨翟（只顾自己或兼爱而无君臣父子之义）。借口说是佛道之道，却不知道道藏和佛藏中所记载的慈悲誓愿究竟是什么意思。
这两者都偏颇了。孔圣人并非没有修养，释道也并非没有事功，曲调不同但工巧相同，派别不同但源头相同。相同之处在于格物、致知、诚意、正心的功夫；不同之处在于修身、齐家、治国、平天下的事迹，其实道理是一样的。
回顾混沌初开，从盘古到夏商周三代，中国并没有儒家和道家的分别。凡是修道之士，无一不是阅读五帝三王时期的书籍，既是儒家，也是道家。道家非常推崇黄帝和彭祖，老子的学问孔子也曾采取并私下比作自己，访问过他，赞叹过他，何曾进行过攻辩？直到汉代张天师出现，儒家和道家才开始分离。不知道张天师之道也是道，也是儒。将其分离的，是后世建立宗派的行为。
又秦汉以前，中国的疆域不广阔，只占据天下的十分之二。海外数千百个国家，孔教难以到达，天生燃灯古佛，在中古时期演教法度，随后释迦牟尼出世，在西域宣化教化，师徒相传二十八代，直到达摩祖师来到东土。外来的佛教分支，有黄教、红教的区别；达摩祖师坐化西归后，中国佛教另辟一派，有临济宗、曹洞宗的分别；这也如同儒家有南北学派、汉宋学派之分；道家有正一派、龙门派之类。种种流派，法门不同但宗旨相同，派别分开但大道合一，一生万，万合一，道理都没有差异。如果不秉持中道，能流传得远而且久吗？！这期间不过各宗各派，各有异同，各自坚守各自传承，各有得失。有精粗、纯驳的区别，有浅深、真伪的不同，都不可过分非议。
如今三教并立，很少有人能贯通，尊此贬彼，尊彼贬此。讲修炼的人，称呼儒家为俗气；守章句的人，视佛道为谬误。自命清高，互相攻击，甚至同室操戈，前后矛盾，真是可笑啊！
简而言之：儒家称为“执中”，释家称为“守中”，道家称为“玄中”，这不就是三教一贯吗？所以推阐这个道理，不得不综合三教的道理来说，并不是故意用释道的方法来混乱儒家圣经。再想想圣人的言论，无所不包，释道关于身心性命的学问，又有什么不可以摘取来证明呢？！
The books of the Three Teachings (Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism), although differing in wording, share the same purport. Practitioners should not harbor sectarian prejudices. Where contents are similar, they should be consulted with each other; where they differ, one should still strive to comprehend them wisely. Texts expounding principles may offer insights applicable to governance and social order. Studies of statecraft and livelihood provide sufficient methods for self-cultivation. Through mutual verification, one gains considerable benefit. To adhere rigidly to a single school while dismissing all others is certainly not the way of a learned scholar.
In expounding these classics, every statement has its origin. Passed down through oral transmission and heart-to-heart instruction, occasional excerpts from other collections are merely old sayings of the sages of the Three Teachings, not fabricated inventions.
Daoism and Buddhism are now widely recognized by the world as two aspects of one truth. However, Confucianism and Buddhism are often seen as divergent paths. Their inability to merge stems from later scholars creating separate sects. Those who study the books of Confucius—regardless of whether they merely memorize rhetoric or engage in practical learning—often compete for fame and merit, neglecting self-cultivation. They speak grandly of nature and destiny but derive no benefit for their body and mind, failing to understand what the Six Classics and Four Books actually teach regarding nourishing the body and mind.
Those who study Buddhist and Daoist texts—regardless of whether they perform rituals and keep precepts or focus on mental stability—often specialize in cultivation practices while ignoring family and state affairs, effectively emulating Yang Zhu and Mo Di. Claiming to follow Buddhism or Daoism, they fail to grasp the meaning of the vows of compassion recorded in the Daoist Canon and Buddhist Tripitaka. Both sides are biased. Confucius was not devoid of self-cultivation, nor were Buddhism and Daoism devoid of worldly achievements. Different tunes achieve similar skill; different schools share the same source. The commonality lies in the efforts of investigating things, extending knowledge, sincerity of will, and rectification of the mind. The difference lies in the manifestations of cultivating oneself, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world. Ultimately, the principle is one.
Looking back to the beginning of chaos, from Pangu to the Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, Zhou), there was no distinction between Confucianism and Daoism in China. All those who studied the Way read the books of the Five Emperors and the Three Kings; they were both Confucians and Daoists. Daoism highly praises Huangdi (the Yellow Emperor) and Pengzu. Laozi’s teachings were adopted by Confucius, who compared himself to him, sought his advice, and praised him, never engaging in debate. It was only with the emergence of the Heavenly Master (Zhang Daoling) in the Han Dynasty that Confucianism and Daoism began to separate. In reality, the Way of the Heavenly Master was also Dao and also Confucianism. The separation was caused by later generations establishing sects.
Before the Qin and Han dynasties, China’s territory was not vast, occupying only one-tenth of the world. Beyond the seas lay thousands of countries beyond the reach of Confucian teachings. Dipankara Buddha appeared first, propagating the Dharma in the ancient middle lands. Subsequently, Shakyamuni emerged, spreading教化 (teaching/transforming) in the Western Regions. Transmission continued through twenty-eight generations until Patriarch Bodhidharma came to the Eastern Land. Foreign Buddhist branches included distinctions such as the Yellow Hat and Red Hat schools. After Patriarch Bodhidharma attained parinirvana in the West, Chinese Buddhism developed separate lineages, such as the Linji and Caodong schools. This is akin to the Northern and Southern schools or Han and Song scholarship in Confucianism, or the Zhengyi and Longmen sects in Daoism. Various schools have different methods but the same purport. Though divided into sects, the Great Way remains united. From one comes ten thousand; from ten thousand returns to one. The principles are identical. Without adhering to the Middle Way, how could it spread far and endure long? Throughout this history, each sect had its similarities and differences, preserved its own transmissions, and possessed its merits and flaws. There were distinctions between refined and crude, pure and mixed, shallow and deep, true and false. None should be excessively condemned.
Today, the Three Teachings stand side by side, yet few can integrate them. People elevate one and subordinate another. Those focusing on cultivation call Confucianism vulgar; those sticking to textual commentary regard Buddhism and Daoism as erroneous. They look down upon each other and attack each other, even fighting within the same house, contradicting themselves. This is truly laughable.
Briefly stated: Confucianism speaks of "holding the mean," Buddhism speaks of "guarding the center," and Daoism speaks of "mysterious centrality." Is this not evidence that the Three Teachings are consistent? Therefore, to elucidate this Way, one must discuss it by integrating the principles of the Three Teachings. This is not to confuse the Sacred Scriptures with Buddhist and Daoist methods. Consider that the words of the Sages encompass everything. What harm is there in extracting insights from Buddhist and Daoist teachings on body, mind, nature, and destiny to verify them?