成唯識論述記 4.132

4.132

述曰：《莊嚴論》言不行故，謂聲聞智不能行故。大乘理教廣大甚深，外道、小乘思量不及，故不為說。彼經論中曾所未說，設為彼說亦不信受，根器小故；非彼境故，如阿陀那識中頌。應立量云：大乘經是佛語；許非餘外道等境契經攝故；如《增一》等。不言契經攝，即大乘論為不定失。又阿陀那識前已成有，故今為量：除彼識教外，諸大乘經皆是佛說；許諸聲聞所不聞信契經攝故；如阿陀那識教。又彼論言，有五因故，彼忖度人不得入大乘境。一、有依故，智依教生，非證智故；二、不定故，有時有處有異智生故；三、緣俗故，忖度世諦不及第一義諦故；四、不普故，雖緣世諦但得少解，不解一切故；五、退屈故，諍論辨窮即默然故。大乘智無依有證智，乃至終無退屈，故大乘經理非忖度人境。彼言忖度人，即聲聞、外道。然彼復言：前三因建立大乘雖是佛說，然今釋迦如來不說此法。

The Commentary states: What the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra calls "not functioning" means that the wisdom of the śrāvakas cannot function [therein]. The principle and teaching of the Mahāyāna are vast and extremely profound; the reasoning of non-Buddhists and the Hīnayāna cannot reach them, and therefore it was not spoken for them. It was never spoken in their sūtras and treatises, and even if spoken for them, they would not believe and accept it, because their faculties and capacities are small; because it is not their domain, as in the verse on the ādānavijñāna. One should formulate the syllogism: Thesis: The Mahāyāna sūtras are the Buddha's speech; Reason: Because they are accepted as subsumed under the sūtras that are not the domain of other non-Buddhists and the like; Example: Like the Ekottarikāgama and so forth. If one does not say "subsumed under the sūtras," then the Mahāyāna treatises would constitute the fallacy of inconclusiveness. Furthermore, since the ādānavijñāna was previously established as existent, one now constructs the syllogism: Thesis: Aside from the teaching of that consciousness, all Mahāyāna sūtras are the Buddha's speech; Reason: Because they are accepted as subsumed under the sūtras that are not heard or believed by the various śrāvakas; Example: Like the teaching of the ādānavijñāna. Furthermore, that treatise says that due to five reasons, those who engage in conceptual speculation cannot enter the domain of the Mahāyāna: First, because of having support: their wisdom arises supported by teaching and is not experiential wisdom; second, because of being indeterminate: different wisdom arises at different times and in different places; third, because of taking the conventional as object: their conceptual speculation on conventional truth cannot reach the ultimate truth; fourth, because of not being universal: although taking conventional truth as object, they attain only slight understanding and do not understand everything; fifth, because of retreating: when their arguments and dialectics are exhausted, they fall silent. The wisdom of the Mahāyāna has no support and possesses experiential wisdom, and so on up to never retreating; therefore, the principles of the Mahāyāna sūtras are not the domain of conceptual speculators. What it calls "conceptual speculators" refers to śrāvakas and non-Buddhists. However, they further say: "Although the preceding three reasons establish that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's speech, yet the present Śākyamuni Tathāgata did not speak this Dharma."