大乘入道次第 1.47

1.47

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?