新文化運動的領導人胡適，倡議文化的革新，也因此在他專業的學術研究上，喜談革命性的觀點，他對中國禪宗史的研究，就是建立了南宗禪根本就是神會和尚的革命性創作之說，主張神會藉由《壇經》的編寫，以頓悟之教，革命了前此之漸修之教。而胡適自己則更進一步，主張禪宗自達摩以降的傳承，就是以《楞伽經》交付的「楞伽宗」，而慧能所傳，卻改成了《金剛經》，所以慧能是開一新宗，具有革命性的意義在，更重要的是，「楞伽宗」是漸教之路，而，《金剛經》宗，是頓悟之路。此說，筆者完全不能同意。筆者主張，佛教修行必是頓悟漸修，強調頓悟則可，否定漸修則不可，不論是《壇經》之作，還是慧能、神秀的意思，都只是強調必須要有頓悟意旨，都不能理解為是否定禪定漸修的法門。至於《楞伽經》，根本就是大乘如來藏系經典，既講漸修，也講頓悟，根本就有經典依據，胡適推之太過，不符哲學的理解。

Hu Shih, the leader of the New Culture Movement, advocated cultural innovation and, therefore, was inclined to revolutionary perspectives in his scholarship. He declared that the southern Zen Buddhism was a revolutionary construction by Shenhui, who transformed the prior sect of gradual cultivation into the sect of sudden enlightenment through his compilation and writing of The Altar Sutra. Moreover, in Hu Shih’s opinion, the legacy of Zen Buddhism has been has been school of Lankavatara ever since the time of Bodhidharma, as what Hui Neng passed down was the school of Diamond. Accordingly, Hui Neng was the founder of a new and revolutionary school, and, more importantly, the school of Lankavatara was the path of gradual cultivation, while the school of Diamond was the path of sudden enlightenment. On this point, the writer totally disagrees with Hu Shih. The writer believes that the practice of Buddhism is a combination of sudden enlightenment and gradual cultivation. It is acceptable to emphasize sudden enlightenment; however, the denial of gradual cultivation is unacceptable. Though emphasizing the necessity of sudden enlightenment, neither The Altar Sutra, Hui Neng nor Shen Xiu denied the dharma of gradual cultivation. As for The Lankavatara Sutra, it addresses both gradual cultivation and sudden enlightenment; in the writer’s view, Hu Shih’s reference is somewhat far-fetched.