阿彌陀經通贊疏 1.21

1.21

「二、西天判教者：一、勝義俱空宗判教、二、應理圓實宗判教。且初那爛陀寺師子覺智光等，依文殊為宗主，判教為三時：一、生空；二、非空非有；三俱空。且生空者，即廣說二乘等教是；二、非空非有教者，即《法華》等是；三、俱空，即八部《般若》是。第二應理圓實宗判教者，即那爛陀寺有論師名戒賢，依彌勒菩薩為宗主，判教為三時：一、有教，一代時教說有處是；二、空教，但說空處是；三、非空非有教，但說非空非有處是，依、圓是有，遍計等無，是真諦，但以將教就時，此非也；戒賢論師將時就教為正。難真諦云：佛成道後第二七日說《華嚴經》，豈是第一時教？又言四十年後非空非有是第二時教者，即佛臨涅槃說《遺教經》，豈是第三時？戒賢將時就教判為正。此經詮淨土，依、圓是有，遍計等無，即是非空非有教也。」

"Second, as for the classification of teachings in the Western Heavens: first, the classification of the teachings by the School of the Emptiness of Both according to Ultimate Truth; second, the classification of the teachings by the School of Conforming to Principle and Perfect Reality. First, Ācārya Simhabhadra [Shizijue], Jñānaprabha [Zhiguang], and others of Nālandā Monastery took Mañjuśrī as their primary authority and classified the teachings into three periods: first, the emptiness of persons; second, neither emptiness nor existence; third, the emptiness of both. The emptiness of persons refers to the broad exposition of the teachings of the two vehicles and the like; the teaching of neither emptiness nor existence refers to the *Lotus Sūtra* and the like; the emptiness of both refers to the eight divisions of *Prajñāpāramitā*. Second, regarding the classification of teachings by the School of Conforming to Principle and Perfect Reality, there was a treatise master at Nālandā Monastery named Śīlabhadra who took the Bodhisattva Maitreya as his primary authority and classified the teachings into three periods: first, the teaching of existence, which comprises places throughout the lifetime teachings where existence is spoken of; second, the teaching of emptiness, which comprises places where only emptiness is spoken of; third, the teaching of neither emptiness nor existence, which comprises places where neither emptiness nor existence is spoken of—dependent and perfected [natures] are existent, while the imputed nature and so forth are non-existent. This was Paramārtha's view; however, matching the teachings to chronological periods in this manner was incorrect. Treatise Master Śīlabhadra took matching the chronological periods to the teachings as correct. He objected to Paramārtha, saying: 'The Buddha taught the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* in the second seven-day period after his attainment of the Way; how could it belong to the teaching of the first period? Furthermore, you say that what was taught after forty years as neither emptiness nor existence is the second period's teaching; yet when the Buddha was approaching parinirvāṇa he taught the *Bequeathed Teaching Sūtra*; how could that be the third period?' Śīlabhadra's classification matching the chronological periods to the teachings is correct. This sūtra explains the Pure Land: dependent and perfected natures are existent, while the imputed nature and so forth are non-existent; thus it belongs to the teaching of neither emptiness nor existence."