Now I am not exactly sure how this section is to be interpreted or has been interpreted by the tradition. At face value, it seems to be rejecting meditation practices from the Nikayas and Agamas, practices which I see as totally legitimate and as Buddhavacana. Is this kind of rejection of pre-sectarian practices found in the Nikayas and Agamas common in Yogacara texts like this? I was of the impression that while Mahayana Yogacara texts placed themselves as higher than "sravaka" texts, they did not reject them outright. This is quite troubling to me, since I value these texts a lot and if this were the case, I would have to say that I do not accept this statement form the Samdhinirmocana (!).The Bodhisattva Maitreya addressed the Buddha and said: "World-honored One, you have taught about quietude and vision supported by the doctrine [of the great vehicle] and not supported by [that] doctrine. What do these terms mean?"
The Buddha answered the Bodhisattva Maitreya and said: "Good son, the quietude and vision supported by the doctrine are that quietude and vision attained through the doctrine and its meaning first received and pondered by the bodhisattvas. The quietude and vision not supported by the [bodhisattva] doctrine are the quietude and vision attained not through the images of the doctrine the bodhisattvas have received and pondered, but through the instructions and meanings of other teachings, such as meditation upon decaying and rotting [bodies] or upon the Impermanence of all things, the suffering of all conditioned states of being, the no-self of all things, or the final quiescence of cessation. Such quietude and vision I designate as not supported by doctrine. But, if they have attained a quietude and vision supported by the [bodhisattva] doctrine, those bodhisattvas I have designated as followers of the doctrine, and they have keen faculties, while, if they attain a quietude and vision not supported by doctrine, those bodhisattvas I have designated as followers of faith, and they have dull faculties."
So yea, I am bit confused here because I value both Mahayana and pre-sectarian early Buddhist texts and generally see them as (mostly) compatible, but perhaps now I am seeing that is just wrong and I have to "pick a side". Perhaps someone has some insight or different perspective I have missed?