大乘入道次第 1.46

1.46

此中既言，依三無性說諸法無，明知不說成實、依他亦為非有，成實、依他而體非是三無性故。又，一切法若皆是無，如來往昔說彼為無，正當其理。佛今何故稱為密意耶？凡言密意，不盡理故。此即說彼依他等上無遍計，故言無一切，非依他等實總無矣。明知《阿含》、《般若》經等，隨所化宜覆相談也。生由漸深，堪聞至言，故《深密》等而談諸法非空非有，方名了教。

Since it is stated here that phenomena are spoken of as nonexistent based on the three kinds of naturelessness, one clearly knows that it is not taught that the consummate and other-dependent are also nonexistent, because the essences of the consummate and other-dependent are not the three kinds of naturelessness. Furthermore, if all phenomena were entirely nonexistent, when the Tathāgata in the past taught them to be nonexistent, that would precisely correspond to the principle. Why would the Buddha now call it an implicit intent? Whenever something is called an implicit intent, it is because it did not fully express the principle. This means that upon the other-dependent and so forth, there is no imaginary; therefore it is said that all are nonexistent, not that the other-dependent and so forth are truly entirely nonexistent. One clearly knows that scriptures such as the Āgamas and the Prajñā[pāramitā] spoke with veiled expressions according to what was appropriate for those being converted. As sentient beings gradually deepened and became capable of hearing the ultimate words, therefore the Saṃdhinirmocana and other texts spoke of phenomena as neither empty nor existent, which is only then called the explicit teaching.