成唯識論了義燈 1.35

1.35

又辨時意，以《解深密》說三時教。今此論等，何時教收？然《要集》等云：約此等以辨教時，名為教依。今謂不爾，不約說於半、滿二教，有作、無作，生、法二空，人天言教此等法時，以為所依。若依此等，各自是時。說唯識教，說唯識時。何須更辨是何時教？若約半、滿，有作、無作，生、法空等法門別辨。法門無量，何只爾許？又隨別法，而以辨者，即亦如名，說唯識法教，何須對辨？若云諸教，所說不同。諸師立時，明教各別。此何所攝者？亦不應爾。說一、二、四、五時教等，無聖教文，並不可依。何云教依？既不准定，空設劬勞。然《瑜伽論》，說時為依，依三世辨，不約教時，取此誤也。　又因論生論，聖教之中，一音說法，有二不同：一、詞；二、法，如《無垢稱經》，皆謂世尊同其語詞，或生厭離，或歡喜等法。

Furthermore, concerning the intent of distinguishing the periods, the Saṃdhinirmocana speaks of three periods of teaching. Under which period of teaching are this treatise and the like subsumed? However, the Yaoji and others say that distinguishing the periods of teaching based on these is called the 'basis of the teachings'. Now I say this is not so. It is not based on the time of teaching these dharmas—the half and full teachings, with-action and without-action, the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas, the verbal teachings of humans and devas—that they are taken as the basis. If based on these, each is its own time: the time of teaching vijñapti-mātra is the time of teaching vijñapti-mātra. Why would one need to further distinguish what period's teaching it is? If one distinguishes separately according to the doctrinal gates such as half, full, with-action, without-action, the emptiness of persons and dharmas, etc., the doctrinal gates are immeasurable; how could there be only so many? Furthermore, if one distinguishes according to distinct dharmas, it is just like their names: when teaching the doctrine of the dharma of vijñapti-mātra, why would one need to contrast and distinguish them? If one says that what is expounded in the various teachings is not the same, and the various masters establish periods and explain the teachings differently, [asking] under which this is subsumed, that also should not be so. Speaking of one, two, four, or five periods of teachings and so forth has no scriptural text and none can be relied upon. Why call them the basis of the teachings? Since they are not fixed by authority, it is a futile labour. However, the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of time as a basis in terms of the three times, not in terms of the periods of teaching; adopting this [here] is an error. Furthermore, to raise a discussion based on the treatise: in the noble teaching, the proclamation of the Dharma with a single voice has two differences: first, phrasing; second, doctrine. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, all consider that the World-Honoured One conforms to their phrasing, or generates revulsion, joy, and so forth in the Dharma.