成唯識論述記 4.123

4.123

述曰：說「至教」者，言忠於理真實教也，故諸論等無不定失。若成佛語即初四因加「契經攝」字，不爾四因皆有不定。六足等論，雖順無我等，非佛語故。量中有五因，兩句為一因，及末後「樂大乘者許能顯示無顛倒理契經攝故」，為第五也。初言「諸大乘經」；末言「至教量攝」是宗也；中間是因，「如《增一》等」喻。然初四因有隨一過，彼不許此順無我等故。又若以契經為至教有不定過，大乘等諸論，皆順無我，違數取趣，豈即至教量所攝也？以為不定，彼非至教故。唯第五因有所簡別，自許能顯示無顛倒理契經攝故，簡他不極成。然自亦許《增一》等至教量故，前四種因皆以末後因成立得為因。因既成已，即總及別有十比量。前四因為宗有四，皆以許能顯示等為因。又以諸大乘經至教量攝為宗，兩對為一因，各加「樂大乘者許契經攝故」字。因既有五，合前為九。又總以中間四對為宗，唯取許能顯示為因。且略而言故有十種，若二三合等隨義應知。

The Commentary states: The term "authoritative testimony" refers to authentic teaching that conforms faithfully to reason; thus, the treatises and the like do not suffer from the fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). If establishing that it is the Buddha's word, one must add the words "subsumed under the sūtras" to the first four reasons; otherwise, all four reasons would be inconclusive, because treatises such as the Ṣaṭpādābhidharma, although conforming to selflessness and the like, are not the Buddha's word. In the syllogism, there are five reasons: every two clauses constitute one reason, and the final one—"because it is accepted by those who delight in the Mahāyāna as subsumed under the sūtras that reveal the unerroneous principle"—constitutes the fifth. The opening words "All Mahāyāna sūtras" and the closing words "are subsumed under the means of valid knowledge of authoritative testimony" are the thesis; the middle parts are the reasons; "like the Ekottarikāgama and so forth" is the example. However, the first four reasons suffer from the fallacy of being unestablished for one party (anyatarāsiddha), because the opponent does not concede that these [sūtras] conform to selflessness and the like. Furthermore, if one simply took sūtras as authoritative testimony, there would be the fallacy of inconclusiveness: treatises of the Mahāyāna and the like all conform to selflessness and oppose [the concept of] a person (pudgala)—could they then be subsumed under the means of valid knowledge of authoritative testimony? They would constitute [counterexamples showing] inconclusiveness, because they are not authoritative testimony. Only the fifth reason contains a qualification: "because it is accepted by oneself as subsumed under the sūtras that reveal the unerroneous principle," which eliminates what is unestablished for the other party. However, since oneself also accepts that the Ekottarikāgama and so forth are authoritative testimony, the preceding four reasons all rely on the final reason to be established as reasons. Once the reasons are established, there are ten syllogisms in total and in particular. Taking the first four reasons as theses, there are four [syllogisms], all using "because it is accepted as revealing..." and so forth as their reason. Furthermore, taking "All Mahāyāna sūtras are subsumed under the means of valid knowledge of authoritative testimony" as the thesis, every two pairs are taken as one reason, each adding the words "because it is accepted by those who delight in the Mahāyāna as subsumed under the sūtras." Since there are five reasons, combined with the preceding ones, they make nine. Furthermore, taking the middle four pairs collectively as the thesis, one takes only "accepted as revealing..." as the reason. Speaking in brief, there are ten kinds; combinations of two, three, and so forth should be understood according to the sense.