成唯識論了義燈 1.34

1.34

Answer: The ancients established a single period based on the Buddha being able to teach suddenly at one time, and therefore called it a single period. Although the manifestation is unified according to his capacity, it is not so in relation to the capacities of the audience. Since the ripening of sentient beings' capacities has earlier and later stages, how can teaching the Dharma at one time be called a single period? Now, establishing a single period is based on the principle being one, and in relation to the ultimate fruit, it is called a single period. Furthermore, in terms of addressing people of sudden awakening, whichever teaching is expounded, they are able to awaken suddenly; the principle of the two emptinesses expounded in a single assembly eliminates both clingings at once, and is therefore called a single period. This is why when the wheel of Dharma of the four truths was first turned at the Deer Park, immeasurable bodhisattvas entered the first bhūmi and so forth; if they heard the four truths without awakening to the emptiness of dharmas, how could they enter the first Pramuditā-bhūmi and so forth? It is not fixed to a single assembly that it is called a single period; in terms of those of sudden awakening, whichever teaching they hear, they always awaken to emptiness and existence as well as to the two emptinesses, so that from beginning to end it is a single conversion, which is called a single period. In distinguishing periods, Liu Qiu established a five-period teaching; even if it is said to be based on gradual awakening, the principle is also not so. When the Benxing jing on the five precepts was spoken for Trapuṣa and others, they universally attained the noble paths of the various vehicles, so it cannot be called the first period as solely a human and heavenly teaching primarily for merchants, nor can it be called secondary; even in relation to the gradual, one cannot establish five periods based on fixed chronological sequence of months and years. Moreover, there is no scriptural passage, which is a fault. Furthermore, regarding gradual and sudden teachings, if the principle being exhausted in the two truths expounded in a single assembly is called sudden, then one should not call the Avataṃsaka, Śrīmālā, and so forth sudden and the Lotus, Prajñā, and so forth gradual, because in both cases the principle is exhausted in a single assembly. If it is said that addressing the Great without arising from the Small is called sudden, one should also not definitively call the Avataṃsaka and so forth sudden teachings and judge the Lotus and so forth as gradual teachings. In both there are gradual and sudden capacities present in the assembly; thus, while establishing gradual and sudden is not obstructed, definitively categorizing the teachings is not permitted. The original intent of the Fayuan should be understood in this way.