新華嚴經論 3.25

3.25

又西域戒賢，遠承彌勒、無著，近踵護法、難陀，依《深密經》、《瑜伽》等論立三種教。佛初鹿園說小乘法，雖說生空，猶未說法空真理，以非了義，即四《阿含》等經是。第二時中，雖依遍計所執自性說諸法空，然猶未說依他圓成唯識道理，故亦非了義，即諸部《般若》等教是。第三時中，方就大乘正理，具說三性三無性等唯識二諦，方為了義，即《解深密經》等。又此三位，各以三義釋：一攝機、二說教、三顯理。且初唯攝聲聞、唯說小乘、唯顯生空。二唯攝菩薩、唯說大乘、唯顯二空。三普攝諸機、通說諸乘、具顯空有。是故前二攝機顯理各有闕，故非了義。後一機無不攝、教無不具、理無不圓故，故為了義。

Furthermore, Śīlabhadra of the Western Regions—tracing his lineage remotely from Maitreya and Asaṅga, and proximately from Dharmapāla and Nanda—established three kinds of teachings based on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, and other works. When the Buddha first taught the Hīnayāna Dharma in the Deer Park, although he explained the emptiness of the person, he had not yet explained the true principle of the emptiness of phenomena; since it was not of definitive meaning, this refers to texts such as the four Āgamas. In the second period, although he explained the emptiness of all phenomena based on the conceptually imagined nature (parikalpitasvabhāva), he had not yet explained the Consciousness-Only principle of the dependent (paratantra) and fully perfected (pariniṣpanna) natures; therefore, this too was not of definitive meaning, referring to the teachings of the various Prajñāpāramitā texts. In the third period, only then did he fully explain the two truths of Consciousness-Only, such as the three natures and three non-natures, in accordance with the correct principle of the Mahāyāna, which was truly of definitive meaning; this refers to the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and so forth. Moreover, each of these three stages is explained by three criteria: first, the capacities embraced; second, the teachings expounded; third, the principles revealed. The first exclusively embraces the śrāvakas, exclusively expounds the Hīnayāna, and exclusively reveals the emptiness of the person. The second exclusively embraces the bodhisattvas, exclusively expounds the Mahāyāna, and exclusively reveals the twofold emptiness. The third universally embraces all capacities, comprehensively expounds all vehicles, and fully reveals both emptiness and existence. Therefore, the first two each have deficiencies in the capacities embraced and the principles revealed, and hence are not of definitive meaning. The latter leaves no capacity unembraced, lacks no teaching, and leaves no principle unperfected, and hence is of definitive meaning.