成唯識論述記 4.124

4.124

然《攝大乘》說：諸大乘經皆是佛語；一切不違補特伽羅無我性故；如《增一》者，此對小乘有隨一過。設許不違補特伽羅無我，便共許《發智》等為不定，彼亦不違人無我，諸師於此未能了達。然有大名居士，德重智高，芳振一時，英流八表。時人不敢斥其尊德，號曰抱跋迦，此云食邑。以其學業有餘，理當食邑，即是勝軍論師。四十餘年成立一量云：諸大乘經皆是佛說，宗也；兩俱極成非諸佛語所不攝故，因也；如《增一》等阿笈摩經，喻也。注在唯識決擇釋中，時世久行。我師至彼而難之曰：此亦不然。且《發智》論亦極成，非佛語所不攝，彼宗自許真是佛語。雖聖者集本是佛說，亦外道等及汝大乘者，兩俱極成非佛語所不攝，非如《增一》等。若以《發智》為宗，因犯兩俱不成，宗犯違教失，不以為宗。故知此因有自不定，為如《發智》，兩俱極成非佛語所不攝故。汝大乘教如自所許，《發智》非佛語耶？為如《增一》等，兩俱極成非佛語所不攝故，大乘是佛語耶？若直言為如《發智》極成非佛語不攝，小乘即違自宗，自許是佛語故。故今應言：為如汝自許《發智》極成非佛語不攝，彼大乘非佛語耶？以不定中有自、有他，及兩俱過，此犯自失。由此理故，遂正彼云：自許極成非佛語所不攝故，簡彼六足等非自許故，即無前失。

However, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "All Mahāyāna sūtras are the Buddha's word; because they entirely do not contradict the selflessness of persons; like the Ekottarikāgama." Against the Hīnayāna, this suffers from the fallacy of being unestablished for one party. Even granted that they do not contradict the selflessness of persons, then commonly accepting the Jñānaprasthāna and so forth would make it inconclusive, since they also do not contradict the selflessness of persons; the various masters have failed to comprehend this. Now there was a prominent lay practitioner of great renown, profound virtue, and lofty wisdom, whose fragrance shook his age and whose brilliance spread to the eight directions. People of the time dared not address him directly by his honorable name and called him *Bhojaka* (Baobajia), which here means "one who enjoys a fief." Because his scholarly accomplishments were superlative, it was fitting that he should enjoy a fief; this was the master Jayasena. For over forty years he maintained a single syllogism, stating: Thesis: All Mahāyāna sūtras are spoken by the Buddha; Reason: Because they are not subsumed under what is not the word of the Buddhas, which is mutually established for both parties; Example: Like the āgama sūtras such as the Ekottarikāgama. This was recorded in his commentary on the *Viniścaya of Vijñaptimātra* and circulated widely for a long time. When my teacher [Xuanzang] arrived there, he criticized it, saying: "This is also not correct. For the Jñānaprasthāna treatise is also mutually established as not being subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word, as his own school accepts it to truly be the Buddha's word. Although compiled by the noble ones, it was originally spoken by the Buddha; moreover, for non-Buddhists and the like as well as for you Mahāyānists, it is mutually established as not being subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word, unlike the Ekottarikāgama and so forth. If one takes the Jñānaprasthāna as the thesis, the reason commits the fallacy of being unestablished for both parties (ubhayāsiddha), and the thesis commits the fallacy of contradicting doctrine; hence it is not taken as the thesis. Thus we know this reason has the fault of inconclusiveness for oneself: Is it like the Jñānaprasthāna, in being mutually established as not being subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word, so that your Mahāyāna teaching, just as you yourself accept the Jñānaprasthāna [not to be the Buddha's word], is not the Buddha's word? Or is it like the Ekottarikāgama and so forth, in being mutually established as not being subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word, so that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word? If one directly says, 'Is it like the Jñānaprasthāna, being established as not subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word?', the Hīnayāna would contradict its own school, since they themselves accept it to be the Buddha's word. Therefore, one should now say: 'Is it like the Jñānaprasthāna, accepted by yourself as established not to be subsumed under what is not the Buddha's word, so that that Mahāyāna is not the Buddha's word?' Because among inconclusiveness there are faults pertaining to oneself, to the other, and to both, this commits a fault for oneself." For this reason, he then corrected it, saying: "'Because it is accepted by oneself as established as not being subsumed under what is not the word of the Buddhas'—by excluding those [treatises like] the six pādas that are not accepted by oneself, it is free from the previous fault."