瑜伽師地論略纂 10.15

10.15

論云「應知是名能比菩薩種姓麁相」等者，以菩薩細種姓相難知，今以行比知種姓，故言能比菩薩種姓麁相，故此段初文云「由此相故，令他了知真是菩薩」。其細相決定實義，唯佛能知。此中，且推於佛，不言我亦不知。古人云彌勒不知者，謬也。以《善戒經》云「種姓麁相，我已略說，諸餘實義，唯佛能知」者，當釋迦亦不知也？且知推佛，非彌勒不知，但言佛究竟知，我亦知，不究竟。寧有此義。若總言彌勒不知，謬也。

The treatise says: "One should know that this is called the coarse characteristic by which the bodhisattva's lineage can be inferred," etc. Because the subtle characteristics of the bodhisattva's lineage are difficult to know, now by inferring the lineage from their practices, it says "can infer the coarse characteristic of the bodhisattva's lineage"; therefore, the opening text of this section states: "Due to these characteristics, others are caused to understand that one is truly a bodhisattva." As for the definitive, real sense of the subtle characteristics, only a Buddha can know it. Here, it simply defers to the Buddha; it does not say that I also do not know. When the ancients said that Maitreya does not know, they were mistaken. For the Shan jie jing says: "I have briefly explained the coarse characteristics of the lineage; the other true meanings can only be known by a Buddha." Could it be that Śākyamuni also did not know? It should be known that deferring to the Buddha does not mean Maitreya did not know, but only says that a Buddha knows thoroughly, whereas I also know, but not thoroughly. How could it mean that? To say universally that Maitreya did not know is an error.