大乘入道次第 1.46

1.46

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.