成唯識論了義燈 1.35

1.35

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.