大乘入道次第 1.47

1.47

問：何以知然？答：《深密經》云：「勝義生菩薩白佛言：『世尊初於一時，在婆羅痆斯仙人墮處施鹿林中，唯為發趣聲聞乘者，以四諦相轉正法輪。雖是甚奇，甚為希有，一切世間諸天人等，先無有能如法轉者，而於彼時所轉法輪，有上有容，是未了義，是諸諍論安足處所。世尊在昔第二時中，唯為發趣修大乘者，依一切法皆無自性，無生無滅，以隱密相轉正法輪，雖更甚奇，甚為希有，而於彼時所轉法輪，乃至諍論安足處所。世尊于今第三時中，普為發趣一切乘者，依一切法皆無自性、無生無滅、本來寂靜、自性涅槃、無自性性，以顯了相轉正法輪，第一甚奇，最為希有。于今世尊所轉法輪，無上無容，是真了義，非諸諍論安足處所。』」今略釋云：婆羅痆斯，此乃梵音，是河之稱。仙人墮者，昔有一王，將諸婇女在園遊戲。有五百仙騰空欲度，見已墮落，而失神通。從事為名，言仙墮處。施鹿之事，如常應悉。初為一乘偏談四諦，法非至極，名有上容。當恐二乘著於空見，但說依他、圓成為有，不說遍計而體是無，名為未了。即四諦教。諸部小乘因此互乖，名諍安處。第二時中，為初發趣大乘菩薩破其有病，說《大般若》。約遍計執，明諸法空。恐有病增，不說依他、圓成為有，名猶未了。第三時中，具辨三性。遍計名無，依他、圓成稱之為有，名真了義。更無法過，名無上容。言二性有，當為發趣二乘之人。談遍計空義，當為初發大乘者。具辨三性，即當為彼久學菩薩。由此故云，普為發趣一切乘者。大師既自斷唯空有名不了義，故不可執唯有唯空，以為至極。以斯三性通釋諸經，說有談無，何爽通理！若唯言有，明從成實、依他。若總說空，顯依遍計所執。有空雙舉，對三性言，空有俱亡，據絕言義。是以迷心不悟，一行尚不能依；達士通性，十法齊修何咎！

Question: How is this known to be so? Answer: The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says: "Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Initially, at one time, in the Deer Park at the place where the sages fell in Vārāṇasī, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma with the characteristics of the four noble truths solely for those setting forth in the Śrāvaka vehicle. Although this was most extraordinary and extremely rare, such that previously no devas, humans, or others in all the worlds were able to turn it according to the Dharma, the wheel of the Dharma turned at that time was surpassable, had room [for qualification], was of unexplicit meaning, and was a resting place for various disputes. Formerly, during the second period, solely for those setting forth to cultivate the Mahāyāna, relying on all phenomena being without intrinsic nature, unarisen and unceasing, the World-Honoured One turned the wheel of the true Dharma with concealed characteristics. Although this was even more extraordinary and extremely rare, the wheel of the Dharma turned at that time was also [surpassable, had room for qualification, of unexplicit meaning], and was even a resting place for various disputes. Now, in this third period, universally for those setting forth in all vehicles, relying on all phenomena being without intrinsic nature, unarisen and unceasing, originally tranquil, naturally in nirvāṇa, and on naturelessness, the World-Honoured One has turned the wheel of the true Dharma with fully explicit characteristics; it is foremost, most extraordinary, and most rare. The wheel of the Dharma now turned by the World-Honoured One is unsurpassed, leaves no room [for qualification], is of truly explicit meaning, and is not a resting place for various disputes.'" Now to explain this briefly: Vārāṇasī is a Sanskrit word; it is the name of a river. As for "where the sages fell," in the past a king took his court ladies to play in a park. There were five hundred ṛṣis flying through the sky intending to cross over; upon seeing them, they fell down and lost their supernormal powers. It is named after this event as "the place where the sages fell." The matter of the Deer Park should be known as usual. Initially, solely for the one vehicle, he exclusively spoke of the four noble truths; since the teaching was not the utmost, it is called surpassable and having room. Fearing at the time that the two vehicles would cling to the view of emptiness, he only taught the other-dependent and consummate as existent and did not teach that the imaginary is essentially nonexistent; this is called unexplicit. This is the teaching of the four noble truths. The various Hīnayāna schools were mutually discordant on this basis, so it is called a resting place for disputes. During the second period, in order to dismantle the sickness of clinging to existence for bodhisattvas who had newly set forth in the Mahāyāna, he taught the Mahāprajñāpāramitā. In terms of the imaginary clinging, he clarified that all phenomena are empty. Fearing that the sickness of clinging to existence would increase, he did not teach that the other-dependent and consummate are existent; this is called still unexplicit. During the third period, he fully distinguished the three natures: the imaginary is called nonexistent, and the other-dependent and consummate are called existent; this is called truly explicit meaning. Since there is no further teaching surpassing it, it is called unsurpassed and leaving no room. Saying that the two natures are existent pertains to those setting forth in the two vehicles. Speaking of the meaning of the imaginary being empty pertains to those who have newly set forth in the Mahāyāna. Fully distinguishing the three natures pertains to those bodhisattvas who have long trained. Because of this, it says that it is universally for those setting forth in all vehicles. Since the Great Master himself determined that teachings of mere emptiness or mere existence are unexplicit in meaning, one must not cling to mere existence or mere emptiness as the utmost. When one comprehensively interprets the various scriptures through these three natures, whether they teach existence or discuss nonexistence, how could this contradict the comprehensive principle? If a text speaks solely of existence, it clearly proceeds from the consummate and other-dependent. If it generally speaks of emptiness, it is shown to rely on the imaginary. When existence and emptiness are both raised, it is stated with respect to the three natures; when emptiness and existence are both discarded, it is based on the meaning that cuts off verbal expression. Therefore, when the deluded mind fails to understand, it cannot even rely on a single practice; but when a person of realization penetrates the natures, what fault can there be in cultivating all ten dharmas together?