[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 4.111 # 成唯識論述記 4.111 成唯識論述記 4.111 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.111](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.111) 述曰：若起分別我、法二執，凡墮惡趣，愚障聖道，凡無聖道故；愚聖可生故，故各偏義說。恐有此過故，我世尊不為開演。然不為說，凡、愚第七識恒緣第八，執為我法二見亦生。何故不為凡、愚等說？此即南印度羅羅國正量部僧名般若毱多，此名惠藏，安惠之學徒，三代帝王師，造七百頌誹謗大乘，論中作如此說。是佛說者何故相違？撥大乘理為非善說。此不達義，謂不為說。其第七識但生俱生我見，不生惡趣，未障聖道。若為說時，便增煩惱、所知分別我、法二見。第六者起障生聖道，便生惡趣故不為說，何開第七俱我見也？此唯有覆，彼不善故，前為說別。而汝不知俱生、分別二惑過失，妄為此難。此即大師於制惡見中有此分別，西方師等咸皆宗仰。後戒日王三度往喚般若毬多，欲令共我大師論議，辭不肯來。一度辭不能乘馬，一度辭輿熱。復將母象往迎，即辭年老。遙歎大師深生敬伏，但以智窮海性，學盡玄源，故所出言千古模範。然觀凡、愚俱愚法故，故不為說。若不愚法雖決定性亦為說之。然後有難，如外道等雖為不說有阿陀那，亦有分別我法障生，此何不為說者？不然，彼妄計我，沈淪惡趣，冀其修無我而得斷除。今更為說返增重病，彼便執為實體別有，分別我法深增惡趣，故不為說。雖有種姓可聞信解，根未熟故亦不為說，如一乘法信根若熟即便為說。此中約全五姓作論，非約少分故不說言。雖有種姓根未熟者生誹謗故，不為他說深細等義。 > The Commentary states: If they give rise to conceptually constructed views of self and dharmas, the ordinary fall into bad destinies, and the foolish are obstructed from the noble path, since the ordinary have no noble path, while the foolish can produce noble \[realization\]; thus each is spoken of from a distinct perspective. Fearing such faults, I, the World-Honoured One, do not disclose it to them. Yet even if it is not spoken to them, the seventh consciousness of the ordinary and the foolish constantly takes the eighth as an object, and the two views of grasping it as a self and dharmas still arise. Why not speak of it to the ordinary and foolish? This refers to a monk of the Saṃmatīya school in the country of Lāḍha in South India named Prajñāgupta (translated here as Huizang, a disciple of Sthiramati and preceptor to three generations of emperors), who composed seven hundred verses denigrating the Mahāyāna, arguing in his treatise in this manner: 'If it were spoken by the Buddha, why is there this contradiction?'—dismissing the principles of the Mahāyāna as not being good teaching. This fails to grasp the meaning, claiming that it should not be unspoken. Their seventh consciousness only gives rise to innate view of self, which does not cause rebirth in bad destinies nor yet obstruct the noble path. If it were spoken to them, it would increase the conceptually constructed views of self and dharmas of the afflictive and cognitive hindrances. The sixth consciousness arising would obstruct the generation of the noble path and lead to birth in bad destinies; therefore it is not spoken to them. Why would it unleash the innate view of self of the seventh? The latter is only veiled-unindeterminate, while the former is unwholesome; hence the previous distinction in explaining it. Yet you do not understand the faults of the two kinds of delusion—innate and conceptually constructed—and make this challenge groundlessly. This was precisely the distinction made by our Great Master \[Xuanzang\] in refuting evil views, which the masters of the West all revered. Later, King Śīlāditya summoned Prajñāgupta three times, wishing him to debate with our Great Master, but he declined and refused to come: once he declined on the ground that he could not ride a horse; once he declined on the ground that the carriage was too hot. When \[the king\] again sent a female elephant to welcome him, he declined on the ground of old age. From afar, he sighed in deep reverence and submission to the Great Master, for his wisdom exhausted the depths of the ocean and his learning plumbed the mysterious source, so that his words became models for a thousand ages. Now, observing that both the ordinary and the foolish are foolish regarding the Dharma, therefore it is not spoken to them. If they are not foolish regarding the Dharma, even if of determinate nature, it is spoken to them. Then there is an objection: Just as non-Buddhists and others, though ādāna is not spoken to them, also have conceptually constructed \[views of\] self and dharmas that obstruct \[virtue\] from arising, why is it not spoken to them? This is not so. They falsely project a self and sink into bad destinies; one hopes that they will cultivate non-self and be able to eliminate it. If one were now to speak of it to them, it would contrarily increase their grave illness: they would then grasp it as a distinct, real substance, conceptually construct self and dharmas, and deeply increase \[their fall into\] bad destinies; therefore it is not spoken to them. Although there are those with gotra who could hear and faithfully understand, because their faculties are not yet mature, it is also not spoken to them, just as the Dharma of the One Vehicle is spoken of only when the faculty of faith has matured. Here the treatise is formulated in terms of the five gotras in full, not in terms of a small portion; hence it does not say that. Although there are those with gotra whose faculties are not yet mature who would give rise to denigration, the profound and subtle meanings are not spoken to others. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.110](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.110) - [Next: 4.112](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.112) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.4.111) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.111](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.111) · Pramāṇa