成唯識論述記 4.128

4.128

述曰：謂小乘者說，大乘經是壞正法者之所說故。若爾何故世尊不預記別？如當有可怖事，皆先記別故，如分十八部滅正法等。《莊嚴論》言：一、不記故，無先字也，《顯揚》同此。應立量云：諸大乘經若是壞正法者說，佛先應記，宗也；汝說自法內廣壞正法者所起等故，因也；如正法滅事等，喻也。餘可怖事，謂《正法滅經》說：瞻波羅國國城邑，有諸比丘滅我正法，可怖等事。又分十八部等，此中應有不定過難。諸小乘、外道後造諸論，雖佛不記亦壞正法者說故。外道非自法內，小乘非廣壞法者所說，無不定失。又諸大乘經，定非自法內廣壞正法者說，佛先不明記故，如《增一》等。如小乘者造謗大乘論，佛雖不記，非廣壞正法者說，如疥癬故。此下和上制惡見等一一皆有七个比量，彼論中廣說，諸小乘人云：佛無功用捨，故不說。謂佛不作意觀，不記後有大乘者。於彼復言：佛有三因何故不記？一、無功用智恒起現在前，即惠、天眼所見；二、恒作正勤守護正法；三、知未來智無有障礙，如餘可怖事。何故不預記？彼論雖無文傳小乘難，佛亦記已，如經說言：師子中虫自食其肉。即住法內自說大乘或亂正法，豈非師子之虫自食肉也？今應難言：世尊何故不預分明顯記我滅度後，有某甲比丘等說壞正法名為大乘。初總說言自食其肉？應立量云：師子中虫自食其肉教，非定授我記；不分明記故；如記汝驢披師子皮教等。此義寧知非授汝記，責謗大乘名為自食？又汝非我，我不非汝，汝為自食。

The Commentary states: This means the Hīnayānists say that the Mahāyāna sūtras were spoken by destroyers of the true Dharma. If so, why did the World-Honoured One not make a prediction beforehand? Just as whenever there would be a frightening matter, he always made a prediction beforehand, such as the division into eighteen schools, the destruction of the true Dharma, and so on. The Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra states: "First, because of not being predicted," lacking the word "beforehand"; the Prakaraṇāryavācā is identical to this. One should formulate the syllogism: Thesis: If all Mahāyāna sūtras were spoken by destroyers of the true Dharma, the Buddha should have predicted it beforehand; Reason: Because of arising from those within one's own Dharma who extensively destroy the true Dharma as you claim; Example: Like the events of the destruction of the true Dharma and so forth. Other frightening matters refers to what the Sūtra on the Extinction of the True Dharma says: that in the cities and towns of Campā, there would be monks who destroy my true Dharma, frightening events, and so forth. Furthermore, regarding the division into eighteen schools and so forth, there might be an objection of the fallacy of inconclusiveness here: when the various Hīnayāna and non-Buddhist figures later composed various treatises, even though the Buddha did not predict them, they were also spoken by destroyers of the true Dharma. [However,] non-Buddhists are not within one's own Dharma, and the Hīnayāna [treatises] were not spoken by extensive destroyers of the Dharma, so there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness. Furthermore: All Mahāyāna sūtras are definitely not spoken by extensive destroyers of the true Dharma within one's own Dharma; because the Buddha did not clearly predict them beforehand; like the Ekottarikāgama and so forth. Like the Hīnayānists composing treatises slandering the Mahāyāna: although the Buddha did not predict them, they were not spoken by extensive destroyers of the true Dharma, being like scabies. Below this, our preceptor [Xuanzang] refuted evil views and so forth, each having seven syllogisms, which are explained at length in that treatise. The Hīnayāna people say: "The Buddha was in unmotivated equanimity, and therefore did not speak of it"—meaning that the Buddha did not advert his mind to observe, and did not predict that there would later be Mahāyāna adherents. In response to them, it was further said: "For three reasons, why would the Buddha not have predicted it? First, effortless wisdom is constantly present before him, which is seen by the eye of wisdom and the divine eye; second, he constantly exerts right effort to guard and protect the true Dharma; third, his wisdom knowing the future is unimpeded, just as with other frightening matters. Why would he not make a prediction beforehand?" Although there is no text in that treatise reporting the Hīnayāna objection: "The Buddha did predict it, as the sūtra states: 'The worms within the lion devour its own flesh.' That is, those dwelling within the Dharma who themselves preach the Mahāyāna or disrupt the true Dharma—are they not worms within the lion devouring its own flesh?" Now one should challenge them: "Why did the World-Honoured One not clearly and distinctly predict beforehand: 'After my parinirvāṇa, there will be certain monks who preach the destruction of the true Dharma under the name of the Mahāyāna'? Why did he initially speak only generally of devouring one's own flesh?" One should formulate the syllogism: Thesis: The teaching of the worms within the lion devouring its own flesh does not definitely confer a prediction upon me; Reason: Because it does not distinctly predict it; Example: Like the teaching predicting that your donkey would wear a lion's skin, and so forth. How do you know that this meaning was not conferring a prediction upon you, reproaching your slander of the Mahāyāna as devouring your own [flesh]? Furthermore, you reject me, but I do not reject you; it is you who are devouring your own.