瑜伽論記 9.168

9.168

第二就人指行云：如有一類乃至起不如理虛妄分別等者，景云：此破初學大乘人中惡取空者故言一類，佛初成道為聲聞人說四諦教令得四果，得四果已轉執諸有決定性苦真是苦等，其中有不定性人堪迴入大乘，佛為此等說大般若有十萬頌為破遍所執，從始至非未唯說法空，諸學人同如是說故云同說，難解大乘相應空性相應，般若會上未宜同說依他圓成真實是有，故般若經未說此事，故云未極顯了密意趣義甚深經典，又不能知般若經意唯虛妄遍計所執餘二是有，依經總執一切皆空，故云不能如實解所說義起不如理虛妄分別。

Secondly, pointing out the conduct with respect to persons, it says: "For instance, there is a class… up to… who give rise to improper, false conceptualizations": Jing says: This refutes those among the beginners in the Mahāyāna who grasp emptiness erroneously; therefore it says "a class." When the Buddha first attained awakening, he taught the doctrine of the Four Truths for the śrāvakas, causing them to attain the four fruits. Having attained the four fruits, they then clung to conditioned existences as being determinately painful and truly suffering, and so forth. Among them were people of indeterminate lineage who were capable of turning back and entering the Mahāyāna. For these people, the Buddha taught the Great Prajñā[pāramitā] in one hundred thousand verses in order to refute the imagined nature (parikalpita). From beginning to end, he did not exclusively teach the emptiness of dharmas. All students spoke in the same way, hence it says "spoke together." The emptiness associated with the profound Mahāyāna is difficult to understand. At the Prajñā assembly it was not yet appropriate to speak together of the other-dependent and the consummate natures as being real and existent, so the Prajñā sūtras did not teach this matter. Therefore it is called "profound scriptures whose implied intent is not yet fully manifest." Furthermore, being unable to know that the intent of the Prajñā sūtras was that only the false, imagined nature is empty while the other two are existent, they generally clung to everything being empty based on the sūtra. Hence it says: "Unable to truly understand the meaning of what was taught, they give rise to improper, false conceptualizations."