成唯識論了義燈 1.44

1.44

Furthermore, even if it were so, one should not separately classify the Avataṃsaka and so forth as sudden; moreover, to take a single voice as meaning a single time has no scriptural teaching to determinately classify it. Furthermore, to say that the half-letter and full-letter [teachings] constitute two periods—what is refuted by the Fayuan is also, I fear, inappropriate. The sūtra says: "Expounding the half-letter for śrāvakas"—is this not with reference to meeting the capacity [of the listener]? Therefore I fear it is not so. It also fails to understand the intended meaning of what the Fayuan says: its intention does not obstruct meeting the capacity [of the listener] in calling them half and full, but it merely does not allow classifying them as gradual and sudden capacities. Speaking of the half and full as the gradual and sudden teachings is because for people of determinate spiritual lineage he also expounds both the half and the full. As for "the doctrines expressed being distinct", the account of the tīrthikas is as refuted below; Master Ming's Commentary on the Yogācārabhūmi clearly recounts the Hīnayāna. The tenets are fully explained as in the Master's Commentary on the Heterodox Sects, and I will not cite them in full to avoid tediousness. As for clarifying our own school: the distinct school is precisely the Treatise on Vijñapti-mātra; however, the commentary briefly explains it as named "Cheng weishi"; hence, it takes vijñapti-mātra as its doctrine. Consciousness exists and is not empty; cognitive objects are absent and are not existent—this is taken as the doctrine. Although it fully clarifies all phenomena, none of them are separate from consciousness.