大乘義章 2.84

2.84

第二門中定別其相。然彼四中，世及第一當法分別，對治、為人隨化辨異。但就法中有性有相，故分二種：世及第一。生死涅槃、因緣法相，名為世界；如實法性，說為第一。此別可知。對治、為人，別相難識，是以釋者種種不同。今以義分，相亦可知。然彼一切二諦諸法，無不為人、斯皆治病，但就一切為人法中當其門別，隨物所宜應病授與，治物心患即名對治。即彼一切對治門中，異門相望互返不同，彰其為人差別故爾，即名各各為人悉檀。如說諸陰無我人等，對治我患。或時宣說假名之我，對治無患。此即是其對治所攝。何故二門互返不同？以其為人不同故爾，即是各各為人說也。又如經說「不淨觀門，治貪欲患。宣說三十三天果報常樂我淨，令物願求。」捨離諸惡，治不善患，此即是其對治所攝。何故二門互返不同？良以為人不同故爾，即名各各為人悉檀。如是諸門，類此可知，勿得異釋。

In the second section, their characteristics are determined and distinguished. Among those four, the worldly and the ultimate are distinguished in accordance with the dharmas themselves, while the therapeutic and for-persons are differentiated in accord with converting beings. Yet within dharmas there are nature and characteristics, hence they are divided into two kinds: the worldly and the ultimate. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, as the characteristics of dharmas of causes and conditions, are called the worldly; the true dharmatā is spoken of as the ultimate. This distinction is readily known. The distinct characteristics of the therapeutic and for-persons are difficult to discern, which is why commentators have differed in various ways. Now dividing them according to meaning, their characteristics may also be known.

All dharmas of the two truths without exception are for persons, and all of them cure disease. However, within all dharmas for persons, taking each distinct approach, bestowing medicine according to the disease and following what is appropriate for living beings, curing the mental sicknesses of beings is called therapeutic. Within those very therapeutic approaches, when different approaches are compared to each other, they are mutually contrary and distinct, displaying their differentiation according to persons, and that is called the individual person siddhānta. For instance, preaching that the aggregates are devoid of a self or person serves as an antidote to the affliction of self. Sometimes preaching a nominally designated self serves as an antidote to the affliction of nothingness. These are subsumed under the therapeutic. Why are these two approaches mutually contrary and distinct? Because they are directed at different persons, that is, they are taught for individual persons. Furthermore, as the sūtra says: "The approach of contemplating impurity cures the affliction of greed and desire. Preaching the permanent, joyful, self, and pure retribution of the Thirty-three Gods causes beings to aspire to seek it." Renouncing all evils cures the affliction of unwholesomeness; this is subsumed under the therapeutic. Why are these two approaches mutually contrary and distinct? Precisely because they are directed at different persons, they are called the individual person siddhānta. All such approaches may be known by analogy with this, and one should not interpret them differently.