大乘法苑義林章 1.14

1.14

略示教者，四阿笈摩等是初時教；諸說空經是第二時教，以隱密言總說諸法無自性；故《花嚴》、《深密》、《唯識》教等第三時也，以顯了言說三無性非空非有中道教故。由諸異生起自無始迷執有我不了我無，沈沒愛河輪迴癡海，故佛初說四諦法輪，令知我空唯有其法。憍陳那等最初得道，彼聞法有證我皆空，便執諸法為真實有，封著小果不求大位。佛為方便復說法空破除有執，故次時中說《般若》等，言一切法本性皆無。須菩提等迴心趣大，彼聞法空隱密言教，便撥諸法性相都無，何所造修？何所斷捨？佛為除此，復說《唯識》三性等教，勝義生等信解修學，遍計所執無，知法我俱遣，依他圓成有，照真俗雙存。無無所無所以言無，有有所有所以言有。言有而有亦可言無，遍計所執真俗無故；言無而無亦可言有，當情我法二種現故。令除所執我法成無，離執寄詮真俗稱有。妄詮我法非無非不無，當情似有，據體無故；妄詮真俗非有非不有，非稱妄情，體非無故。我法無故俱是執皆遣，真俗有故諸離執皆存。由此應言，迷情四句四句皆非，悟情四句四句皆是。說境我法空破初執有，說心真俗有破次執空。諸偏見者初聞說有，便即快心於空起謗，後聞說空亦復協意，便謗於有。今言非空非有中道教者，第三時也。約理及機，漸入道者大由小起，乃有三時諸教前後，《解深密經》說唯識是也。若非漸次而入道者，大不由小，即無三時諸教前後。約其多分，即初成道《花嚴》等中說唯心是。多分頓漸無別教門，隨一會中所應益故，《花嚴》說有聲聞在會，《深密》亦有聲聞發心，《勝鬘經》中亦說一乘意生身等，《攝大乘》說為不定人說一乘故，《法花經》中〈分別功德品〉言「佛說如來壽量品時，有八世界微塵數眾生發菩提心。」如是等文上下非一，故知《法花》亦被頓悟，《花嚴》亦有漸悟之人。若依覺愛定唯一時無漸次者，即違《深密》說有三時。若依劉虬定有五時前後次第，復無文說。然違三時，今總不依。若據眾生機器及理，可有頓漸之教，然不同於古說。若不約機理定判一經為頓為漸，時增減者頓漸不成，故《唯識》云「唯我於凡愚不開演」，非遮不定及定性故，此依證果。若謂人天即有四時，其二乘者方便學法，是彼初學，故略不說。今依師授略敘古今時利差別，其諸有智任情取捨。

As for briefly setting forth the teachings: the four Āgamas and so forth are the teachings of the first period; the various sutras teaching emptiness are the teachings of the second period, because they generally declare all phenomena to be without self-nature with hidden words; the *Avataṃsaka*, *Saṃdhinirmocana*, and *Vijñaptimātratā* teachings are the third period, because they explicitly declare the Middle Way teaching of the three non-natures, neither empty nor existent. Because all ordinary beings, arising from beginningless time, errantly grasp at the existence of a self without understanding the self's nonexistence, sinking into the river of craving and reincarnating in the ocean of delusion, the Buddha first taught the wheel of the Dharma of the four truths to make them understand that the self is empty and only phenomena exist. Kauṇḍinya and the others initially attained the path; having heard that phenomena exist and realizing that the self is entirely empty, they then grasped phenomena as truly existent, clinging to the small fruit and not seeking the great stage. As an expedient means, the Buddha then taught the emptiness of phenomena to break down the clinging to existence; therefore, in the next period he taught the *Prajñāpāramitā* and so forth, stating that all phenomena are fundamentally nonexistent in their nature. Subhūti and others turned their minds toward the Mahāyāna; having heard the hidden verbal teachings on the emptiness of phenomena, they then rejected the nature and marks of all phenomena as entirely nonexistent, [asking]: what is there to cultivate? What is there to abandon? To eliminate this, the Buddha further taught the doctrine of *Vijñaptimātratā* and the three natures; Paramārthasamudgata and others believed, understood, cultivated, and studied them. The imagined nature is nonexistent, knowing that both phenomena and self are dispelled; the dependent and perfected natures are existent, illuminating that both the ultimate and the conventional are preserved. It is called nonexistent because of the nonexistence of what is nonexistent, and called existent because of the existence of what is existent. What is stated to be existent while existent may also be called nonexistent, because the imagined nature is nonexistent in both the ultimate and conventional; what is stated to be nonexistent while nonexistent may also be called existent, because the two types, self and phenomena, appear before the deluded mind. Causing the grasped self and phenomena to be eliminated makes them nonexistent; leaving behind grasping and lodging them in linguistic designation makes the ultimate and conventional called existent. Falsely designating self and phenomena is neither nonexistent nor not nonexistent: they appear existent before the mind, but based on substance they are nonexistent; falsely designating the ultimate and conventional is neither existent nor not existent: they do not accord with deluded feelings, yet their substance is not nonexistent. Because self and phenomena are nonexistent, all grasping is dispelled; because the ultimate and conventional are existent, all states free of grasping are preserved. Hence one should say: for the deluded mind, all four propositions are wrong; for the enlightened mind, all four propositions are right. Teaching that the objective realm of self and phenomena is empty refutes the initial clinging to existence; teaching that the mind's ultimate and conventional exist refutes the subsequent clinging to emptiness. Those with one-sided views, upon first hearing the teaching of existence, are immediately delighted and slander emptiness; later, upon hearing the teaching of emptiness, they are again pleased and slander existence. Now, what is termed the Middle Way teaching of neither empty nor existent is the third period. In terms of principle and capacity, for those who enter the path gradually, where the great arises from the small, there are the three periods of teachings in sequential order, which is the consciousness-only taught in the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra*. If one does not enter the path gradually, where the great does not arise from the small, then there are no before and after among the three periods of teachings. In terms of the majority, this refers to the teaching of mind-only in the *Avataṃsaka* and others at the initial attainment of the path. For the most part, sudden and gradual have no distinct teaching gates, as benefit is conferred according to what is appropriate in a single assembly: the *Avataṃsaka* states that śrāvakas were in the assembly; the *Saṃdhinirmocana* also has śrāvakas generating the aspiration [for bodhi]; the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* also speaks of the One Vehicle, mind-made bodies, and so forth; the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states that the One Vehicle is taught for indeterminate persons; and the 'Discrimination of Merits' chapter in the *Lotus Sūtra* says: 'When the Buddha preached the chapter on the Life Span of the Tathāgata, sentient beings numerous as the dust motes of eight worlds generated the bodhicitta.' Such passages are found repeatedly above and below; hence we know that the *Lotus Sūtra* also accommodates those of sudden awakening, and the *Avataṃsaka* also has persons of gradual awakening. If one adheres to Bodhiruci's view that there is definitively only one period without gradual stages, this contradicts the *Saṃdhinirmocana*'s teaching of three periods. If one adheres to Liu Qiu's view that there are definitively five periods in sequential order, this again lacks textual support. However, as they contradict the three periods, we do not follow them now. If based on the capacities of sentient beings and on principle, there can be teachings of sudden and gradual, but this differs from the old interpretations. If one does not determine a sutra as sudden or gradual based on capacity and principle, and increases or decreases the periods, then sudden and gradual are not established; hence the *Triṃśikā* says: 'I do not explain it to fools,' which does not exclude the indeterminate and determinate natures, this being based on the realization of the fruit. If one considers humans and devas, then there would be four periods; since practitioners of the two vehicles study the Dharma through expedients, that is their initial learning, so it is omitted here. Now, relying on the master's instruction, I have briefly related the past and present differences in periods and benefits; let those with wisdom accept or reject them at will.