大乘起信論義記 1.13

1.13

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."