成唯識論述記 4.136

4.136

述曰：《莊嚴論》第五體，第六非體，二合為一。彼言有體者，若汝言餘佛有大乘體，此佛無大乘體，亦成我義。大乘無異，體是一故。非體者，若汝云此佛無大乘體，即聲聞乘亦無體。若言聲聞乘是佛說有體，大乘不然無佛乘者，有佛出世說聲聞乘者有大過故，與此少異。此意亦以他佛有大乘體，此佛無大乘體，誰出世說聲聞等？意同前。又此佛別有大乘體，即是此教所詮。彼無此義，又非唯體。若教若理若行若事皆是，故應總言教，此何所攝？大乘以何為體？彼智為體有局義故。謂許有大乘教等，無問自他佛，即此所說是，離此所說大乘無故。量云：諸大乘體等定以此教而為能詮；許能顯彼深妙理等故；如《增一》等教。

The Commentary states: In the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra*, the fifth [reason] is possessing an essence, and the sixth is lacking an essence; here the two are combined into one. Its stating that it has an essence means: if you say that other Buddhas have the essence of the Mahāyāna while this Buddha lacks the essence of the Mahāyāna, this also establishes my position, because the Mahāyāna is non-different and its essence is one. As for lacking an essence: if you say that this Buddha lacks the essence of the Mahāyāna, then the Śrāvakayāna would likewise have no essence. If it is said that the Śrāvakayāna was taught by the Buddha and has an essence, while the Mahāyāna is not so and there is no Buddha Vehicle, then for a Buddha to appear in the world to teach the Śrāvakayāna would involve a major fault; thus it differs slightly from this. The meaning here is also: if another Buddha possesses the essence of the Mahāyāna while this Buddha lacks the essence of the Mahāyāna, who then appeared in the world to teach the Śrāvaka [teachings] and so forth? The meaning is the same as before. Furthermore, this Buddha has separately the essence of the Mahāyāna, which is precisely what is expressed by this teaching. The other [tradition] lacks this meaning, and moreover it is not merely the essence. Whether it is teaching, principle, practice, or fact, all are [included]; therefore it should be spoken of generally as teaching. What is this subsumed under? What does the Mahāyāna take as its essence? Taking wisdom as its essence has a restrictive meaning. That is to say, admitting that there is the Mahāyāna teaching and so forth, without distinguishing whether of oneself or other Buddhas, precisely what is here taught is it, because apart from what is here taught, the Mahāyāna does not exist. The syllogism is: All essences of the Mahāyāna and so forth must take this teaching as their expressive medium; because it is accepted that it is able to reveal those profound and wondrous principles and so forth; like the teachings of the *Ekottarikāgama* and so on.