第三、定教分齊者，此方南北諸師異說紛紜，無勞敘記，且辨西國諸德所傳親問大原寺翻經中天竺三藏法師地婆訶羅，唐言日照，說云：「近代中天竺那爛陀寺，同時有二大德論師：一名戒賢，一名智光，並神解超倫、聲高五印，六師稽顙、異部歸依，大乘學人仰之日月，如天竺獨步，軌範成規，遂各守一宗，互為矛盾。」謂戒賢則遠承彌勒、無著，近踵護法、難陀，依《深密》等經、《瑜伽》等論，明法相大乘，廣分名數，用三教開宗，顯自所依為真了義，謂佛初鹿園轉於四諦小乘法輪，雖說人空翻諸外道，然於緣生定說實有；第二時中，雖依遍計所執，而說諸法自性皆空翻彼小乘，然於依他、圓成猶未說有；第三時中，就大乘正理，具說三性、三無性等，方為盡理。是故於因緣生法，初時唯說有，則墮有邊；次說於空，則墮空邊；既各墮邊、俱非了義，後時具說所執性空、餘二為有，契會中道方為了義。是故依此所說，判般若等經多說空宗，是第二教攝，非為了義。此依《解深密經》判也。二、智光論師遠承文殊、龍樹，近稟青目、清辨，依《般若》等經、《中觀》等論，顯無相大乘，廣辨真空，亦以三教開宗，顯自所依真為了義。謂佛初鹿園為諸小根，轉於四諦小乘法輪，說心境俱有；次於第二時，為中根說法相大乘境空心有則唯識義等，以根猶劣故，未能全入平等真空，故作是說；於第三時，方為上根說此無相大乘，顯心境俱空、平等一味，為真了義。又初則為破外道自性等，故說因緣生法決定是有；次則為破小乘實有，說此緣生但是假有，以恐彼怖畏此真空，故猶存有而接引之；第三方就究竟大乘，說此緣生即是性空、平等一相，此亦是入法之漸次也。則依此說，判法相大乘有所得等為第二教，非了義也。此三教次第，智光法師《般若燈論釋》中引《大乘妙智經》所說，是故依此教理，《般若》等經是真了義，餘法相名數是方便說耳。
Third, on establishing the classification of teachings: In this land, north and south, various masters have put forward diverse interpretations, which need not be recounted here in detail. Instead, let us clarify the transmission from the Western Regions, as personally inquired from the Tripitaka Master Divākara of Central India, who translated scriptures at the Great Origin Temple. In Chinese, he is called Rizhao. He said:
"In recent times, at Nālandā Monastery in Central India, there were two great masters of debate who were contemporaries: one named Śīlabhadra, the other named Jñānaprabha. Both possessed extraordinary insight and wisdom, their reputations towering over the five regions of India. The six non-Buddhist teachers bowed before them, and different Buddhist schools turned to them for refuge. Mahayana practitioners looked up to them as the sun and moon; in India, they were unparalleled, establishing models and norms. Each upheld one school, yet their views stood in mutual contradiction."
It is said that Śīlabhadra inherited the lineage from Maitreya and Asaṅga in the distant past, and more recently followed Dharmapāla and Nanda. Based on sutras such as the *Saṃdhinirmocana* and treatises like the *Yogācārabhūmi*, he elucidated the Mahayana teaching of Dharma-characteristics, extensively classifying names and categories. He used a threefold teaching to establish his school, demonstrating that the doctrine he relied upon was the truly definitive meaning. He taught:
"In the first period, the Buddha turned the Dharma-wheel of the Four Noble Truths, the Small Vehicle, in the Deer Park. Although he taught the emptiness of persons to refute non-Buddhist paths, he still definitively taught that conditioned arising is truly existent. In the second period, although he taught that all phenomena are empty of inherent nature based on the imagined nature, thereby refuting the Small Vehicle, he still did not teach the existence of the dependent nature and the perfected nature. Only in the third period, according to the true principles of the Mahayana, did he fully teach the three natures and the three naturelessnesses, thereby exhausting the principle. Therefore, regarding conditioned arising: in the first period, speaking only of existence falls into the extreme of existence; in the second period, speaking of emptiness falls into the extreme of emptiness. Since each falls into an extreme, neither is the definitive meaning. In the later period, fully teaching the emptiness of the imagined nature while affirming the existence of the other two natures accords with the Middle Way and is therefore the definitive meaning."
Thus, based on this explanation, he judged that sutras like the *Prajñāpāramitā*, which extensively teach the doctrine of emptiness, belong to the second teaching and are not definitive. This judgment is based on the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*.
Second, Master Jñānaprabha inherited the lineage from Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna in the distant past, and more recently followed Āryadeva and Bhāviveka. Based on sutras like the *Prajñāpāramitā* and treatises such as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, he elucidated the Mahayana teaching of signlessness, extensively clarifying true emptiness. He also used a threefold teaching to establish his school, demonstrating that the doctrine he relied upon was the truly definitive meaning. He taught:
"In the first period, for those of lesser capacity in the Deer Park, the Buddha turned the Dharma-wheel of the Four Noble Truths, the Small Vehicle, teaching that both mind and objects exist. In the second period, for those of medium capacity, he taught the Mahayana of Dharma-characteristics, where objects are empty but mind exists—this is the meaning of Consciousness-Only, and so forth. Because their capacity was still inferior, they could not fully enter the equal, true emptiness, so he taught in this way. Only in the third period did he teach this signless Mahayana for those of superior capacity, revealing that both mind and objects are empty, equal and of one taste—this is the definitive meaning."
Furthermore, in the first period, to refute the inherent nature posited by non-Buddhists, he taught that conditioned arising is definitively existent. In the second period, to refute the true existence taught in the Small Vehicle, he taught that this conditioned arising is merely conventionally existent. Because he feared they would be terrified by this true emptiness, he still retained existence to guide them. Only in the third period, according to the ultimate Mahayana, did he teach that this conditioned arising is precisely nature-empty, equal and of one mark. This also represents a gradual sequence for entering the Dharma.
Thus, based on this explanation, he judged that the Mahayana of Dharma-characteristics, with its attainments and so forth, belongs to the second teaching and is not definitive. This threefold sequence of teachings is cited by Master Jñānaprabha in his commentary on the *Prajñāpradīpa* from the *Sūtra of the Great Vehicle's Wondrous Wisdom*. Therefore, based on this teaching and principle, sutras like the *Prajñāpāramitā* are truly definitive, while the rest—the Dharma-characteristics, names, and categories—are expedient teachings.
問：如前二師所說，何得何失？答：若以機會教，二說俱得，以各依聖教為定量故。何者？謂此二說三教次第，俱不可以三時前後定限而取。何以知之？如《密迹力士經》說「佛初鹿園轉四諦法輪，無量眾生得初果二果乃至阿羅漢果，無量眾生發菩提心，無量菩薩得無生法忍，住初地二地等」，乃至廣說。《大品經》中亦同此說，是故不可定說前後。但知如來施設教，則了不了義有其二門：一、約攝機寬狹、言教具闕，以明了不了；二、約攝機入法、顯理增微，以明了不了。初是戒賢所得。何者？謂如《解深密經》中，初施鹿園唯為發趣聲聞乘者，以四諦相轉正法輪等。第二時唯為發趣修大乘者，依一切法皆無自性，乃至以隱密相轉正法輪。第三時普為發趣一切乘者，依一切法皆無自性乃至無自性性，以顯了相轉正法輪。解云：準此經文，初則唯攝聲聞、次則唯攝菩薩，攝機狹故，名非了義；後具攝小大，故云普為發趣一切乘者說也。又初唯說小教、次唯大乘，此二言教各互闕，故名非了；後具說二教用攝二機，此則教具，故名了義，非是理有淺深。又準此文，亦不可定判《般若》等為第二時教。以《大品經》云「若人欲得須陀洹果者，當學般若波羅密，乃至欲得阿羅漢果及無上菩提等，皆云當學般若波羅密。」故知《般若經》等亦具攝大小，亦是普為發趣一切乘者說。《智論》亦云「此摩訶衍中具攝菩薩、聲聞二眾故也。」解云：既具二諦、俱攝兩機，豈得定判為第二教？是故若定判《般若》，則違此所引；若定執前後，則違《力士經》文。是故但約攝機有寬狹、言教有具闕，判此三教有了不了者，理教無也。二、約攝機入法顯理增微門者，智光所承立也。謂初說心境俱有，不達性空；次顯境空心有，已顯一分性空；後心境俱空，平等具顯，方為了義。又於緣生初說實有，次說似有，後方說空。此文並是入法有漸次、顯理有增微，以明三教了不了義。若定執前後定判，經文亦有違害，準可知耳。又戒賢約教判，以教具為了義；智光約理判，以理玄為了義。是故二說所據各異，分齊顯然，優劣淺深，於斯可見。
Question: As for the two masters’ teachings mentioned earlier, what is gained and what is lost? Answer: If we align the teachings with the appropriate opportunities, both views are valid, as each is based on the definitive measure of the sacred teachings. Why? Because the sequence of these three teachings cannot be rigidly fixed in terms of three periods. How do we know this? As stated in the *Mīṭhīya-bala-sūtra*: “When the Buddha first turned the Dharma wheel of the Four Noble Truths in the Deer Park, countless beings attained the first fruit, the second fruit, and even arhatship; countless beings aroused the bodhi mind; and countless bodhisattvas attained the patient acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, abiding in the first ground, second ground, and so forth,” with further extensive explanation. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* also says the same. Therefore, we cannot definitively assert a fixed chronological order.
We should simply understand that the Buddha’s established teachings have two approaches for distinguishing between explicit and implicit meanings: 1. Based on the breadth or narrowness of the audience and the completeness or lack of the verbal teaching. 2. Based on how the audience enters the Dharma and the gradual deepening of the revealed principle.
The first approach is what Śīlabhadra followed. Why? As in the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*, the first teaching in the Deer Park was exclusively for those inclined toward the śrāvaka vehicle, turning the true Dharma wheel with the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths, and so on. The second period was exclusively for those inclined toward the Great Vehicle, based on the principle that all dharmas lack inherent nature, turning the true Dharma wheel in an implicit manner. The third period was universally for all those inclined toward any vehicle, based on the principle that all dharmas lack inherent nature up to the nature of non-inherent nature, turning the true Dharma wheel in an explicit manner.
Explanation: According to this scripture, the first period only includes śrāvakas, the second only bodhisattvas—since the audience is narrow, it is called non-explicit meaning. The latter includes both small and great vehicles, hence it is said to be taught universally for all inclined toward any vehicle. Moreover, the first teaches only the small vehicle, the second only the Great Vehicle—each lacks the other’s teaching, so they are called non-explicit. The latter fully teaches both doctrines to include both audiences—this teaching is complete, so it is called explicit meaning, not because the principle has shallow or deep levels.
Also, based on this text, we cannot definitively classify the *Prajñāpāramitā* sūtras as second-period teachings. Because the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra* states: “If someone wishes to attain the fruit of stream-enterer, they should study the prajñāpāramitā, and likewise for attaining arhatship and unsurpassed bodhi, all say they should study the prajñāpāramitā.” Thus, we know that the *Prajñāpāramitā* sūtras also include both small and great vehicles and are taught universally for all inclined toward any vehicle. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* also says: “This Mahāyāna includes both bodhisattvas and śrāvakas.”
Explanation: Since it contains both truths and includes both audiences, how can we definitively classify it as the second teaching? Therefore, if we rigidly classify the *Prajñāpāramitā*, it contradicts the passages cited here; if we rigidly insist on chronological order, it contradicts the *Mīṭhīya-bala-sūtra*. Thus, we should only judge these three teachings as explicit or implicit based on the breadth or narrowness of the audience and the completeness or lack of the verbal teaching—there is no issue with the principle or teaching itself.
The second approach, based on how the audience enters the Dharma and the gradual deepening of the revealed principle, is what Jñānaprabha upheld. That is: the first teaching says both mind and objects exist, without yet penetrating emptiness of nature; the second reveals that objects are empty but mind exists, already showing a partial emptiness of nature; the third says both mind and objects are empty, equally and fully revealed, which is then considered explicit meaning. Also, regarding dependent origination: first it is said to be truly existent, then seemingly existent, and finally empty. These texts all indicate a gradual entry into the Dharma and a deepening revelation of the principle to clarify the explicit or implicit meaning of the three teachings. If we rigidly insist on a fixed chronological classification, it also contradicts scriptural passages, as can be understood.
Moreover, Śīlabhadra judges based on the teaching, considering completeness of teaching as explicit meaning; Jñānaprabha judges based on the principle, considering profundity of principle as explicit meaning. Therefore, the two views rely on different bases, their boundaries are clear, and their relative strengths and depths can be seen here.