大乘起信論義記 1.13

1.13

第三顯教分齊者，於中有二：先敘諸教，後隨教辨宗。前中此方諸德立教開宗紛擾多端，難可具陳，略述十家，如《華嚴疏》中。又古代譯經，西來三藏，所立教相，亦有多門，略舉五家，亦如彼說。今中天竺國三藏法師地婆訶羅，唐言日照，在寺翻譯，余親問，說云：「近代天竺那爛陀寺，同時有二大德論師，一曰戒賢、一曰智光，並神解超倫，聲高五印、六師稽顙、異部歸誠。大乘學人仰之如日月，獨步天竺各一人而已，遂所承宗異，立教互違。謂戒賢則遠承彌勒、無著，近踵護法、難陀，依《深密》等經《瑜伽》等論，立三種教，以法相大乘為真了義。謂佛初鹿園轉於四諦小乘法輪，說諸有為法從緣生，以破外道自性因等；又由緣生無人我故，翻彼外道說有我等，然猶未說法無我理，即四阿含經等。第二時中，雖依遍計所執，而說諸法自性皆空，翻彼小乘；然於依他、圓成，猶未說有，即諸部般若等。第三時中，就大乘正理，具說三性、三無性等，方為盡理，即《解深密經》等。是故於彼因緣生法，初唯說有即墮有邊，次唯說空即墮空邊，既各墮邊，俱非了義。後時具說所執性空，餘二為有，契合中道，方為了義。此依《解深密經》判。二、智光論師遠承文殊、龍樹，近稟提婆、清辯，依《般若》等經《中觀》等論，亦立三教，以明無相大乘為真了義。謂佛初鹿園為諸小根說於四諦，明心境俱有。次於中時，為彼中根說法相大乘，明境空心有唯識道理，以根猶劣未能令入平等真空，故作是說。於第三時，為上根說無相大乘，辨心境俱空平等一味為真了義。又初則漸破外道自性等，故說因緣生法決定是有；次則漸破小乘緣生實有之執，故說依他因緣假有；以彼怖畏此真空故，猶在假有而接引之。後時方就究竟大乘，說此緣生即是性空平等一相，是故即判法相大乘有所得等為第二時，非真了義也。此三教次第，如智光論師《般若燈論釋》中引《大乘妙智經》說。」

Third, regarding showing the scope of the teachings, within this there are two parts: first, recounting the various teachings, and second, distinguishing the tenet-systems in accordance with the teachings. Within the first part, the eminent masters of this land have established teachings and founded tenet-systems with manifold perplexities that are difficult to recount in full; ten houses are briefly stated, as in the Avataṃsakasūtra Commentary. Furthermore, concerning the ancient translations of sūtras by the tripiṭaka masters who came from the west, the doctrinal characteristics they established also comprise many approaches; five houses are briefly raised, also as explained there. Now the Tripiṭaka Master Divākara of Central India, translated in Tang as Rizhao, while translating in the monastery, was asked directly by me, and he stated: "In recent times at Nālandā Monastery in India, there were simultaneously two great masters of treatise: one named Śīlabhadra, and the other named Jñānaprabha. Both had spiritual comprehension transcending the peerage, their fame elevated across the Five Indias; the six teachers bowed their foreheads, and the disparate schools pledged devotion. Mahāyāna students looked up to them like the sun and the moon; they were without peer in India, each unique in his own right, yet the tenet-systems they inherited were different, and the teachings they established contradicted one another. That is to say, Śīlabhadra remotely inherited Maitreya and Asaṅga, and recently followed Dharmapāla and Nanda; relying on sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi, he established three types of teachings, taking the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa as the truly definitive meaning. That is, the Buddha first in the Deer Park turned the Hīnayāna wheel of Dharma of the four truths, teaching that all conditioned dharmas arise from conditions, in order to refute the innate natures, causes, and so forth of non-Buddhists; moreover, because there is no person-atman owing to arising from conditions, he overturned those non-Buddhists who taught that an atman exists, yet he had not yet taught the principle of the non-self of dharmas—namely, the four Āgamas and so forth. In the second period, although relying on the conceptually constructed [nature] he taught that the inherent nature of all dharmas is empty, overturning that Hīnayāna, nevertheless regarding the other-dependent and the consummate [natures], he had not yet taught their existence—namely, the various Prajñāpāramitā texts and so forth. In the third period, with respect to the correct principle of the Mahāyāna, he fully taught the three natures, the three non-natures, and so forth, only then exhausting the principle—namely, the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and so forth. Therefore, with respect to those dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, initially teaching only existence falls into the extreme of existence, and next teaching only emptiness falls into the extreme of emptiness; since each falls into an extreme, neither is the definitive meaning. In the final period, fully teaching that the conceptually constructed nature is empty while the remaining two are existent accords with the Middle Way, only then being the definitive meaning. This is classified relying on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra. Second, Treatise Master Jñānaprabha remotely inherited Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna, and recently received [the transmission of] Āryadeva and Bhāviveka; relying on sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā and treatises such as the Madhyamaka, he also established three teachings, taking the signless Mahāyāna as the truly definitive meaning. That is, the Buddha first in the Deer Park taught the four truths for those of lesser capacity, clarifying that both mind and object exist. Next, in the intermediate period, for those of middling capacity he taught the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa, clarifying the principle of consciousness-only that objects are empty and mind exists; because their capacities were still inferior and could not yet be made to enter equal true emptiness, he gave this teaching. In the third period, for those of superior capacity he taught the signless Mahāyāna, distinguishing that both mind and object are empty, equal, and of one flavor, as the truly definitive meaning. Furthermore, initially he gradually refuted the inherent nature and so forth of non-Buddhists, and thus taught that dharmas arising from causes and conditions are definitely existent; next, he gradually refuted the Hīnayāna attachment to what arises from conditions as substantially existent, and thus taught that other-dependent causes and conditions are nominally existent; because they were terrified of this true emptiness, he still guided them while abiding in nominal existence. Only in the final period did he approach the ultimate Mahāyāna, teaching that this arising from conditions is itself empty of nature, equal, and of a single mark; therefore, he classified the Mahāyāna of dharmalakṣaṇa with its apprehensions and so forth as belonging to the second period, not being the truly definitive meaning. The sequence of these three teachings is as Treatise Master Jñānaprabha cited from the *Mahāyānasūksmajñānasūtra* in his commentary on the Prajñāpradīpa."