成唯識論述記 4.138

4.138

述曰：若無大乘體等，聲聞乘教亦應不有。以無能詮佛教所詮佛行，依誰成佛說聲聞乘，佛應別有乘教，三乘攝故；或果別故；或佛、聲聞中隨一攝故，如餘二乘。若言佛乘《增一》等是，亦應佛果即聲聞等，應佛即聲聞；許能詮教是一故；如聲聞等。又逼之言：汝聲聞乘等亦應非有；三乘攝故；如汝佛乘。彼論廣中言：若汝言有體者即聲聞乘是大乘體，以此乘得大菩提故，有四因緣非以聲聞乘為大乘體：一、非全故，聲聞唯自利不利他故；二、非不違故，有言自利法教於他即是利他者。不然，雖以自利安他，彼自求涅槃，不可以此得大菩提故；三、非行故，有言若久行聲聞乘行，則得大菩提者。不然，聲聞乘非大菩提方便故，非以久行非方便得大菩提，如搆牛角不出乳故；四、非教授故，大乘教授聲聞乘無故，聲聞乘不即是大乘；又五、因故大乘與聲聞乘相違：一、發心異；二、教授異；三、方便異，皆為自得涅槃故；四、住持異，福智聚少故；五、時節異，三生得解脫故，大乘翻此，故非即聲聞乘。有言大乘依行無果非佛說者。

The Commentary states: If the essence of the Mahāyāna and so on did not exist, the teaching of the Śrāvakayāna would also not exist. Because there would be no Buddha practices expressed by the expressive Buddha teaching, based on whom would one become a Buddha and teach the Śrāvakayāna? The Buddha must have a separate vehicle's teaching, because it is subsumed within the three vehicles; or because its fruition is distinct; or because it is subsumed under either the Buddha or the Śrāvaka, like the other two vehicles. If it is said that the Buddha Vehicle is [found in] the *Ekottarikāgama* and so on, then the Buddha fruition would also be identical to the Śrāvaka and so on, and the Buddha would have to be identical to a Śrāvaka; because it is accepted that the expressive teaching is one; like the Śrāvaka and so on. Furthermore, pressing them, we say: your Śrāvakayāna and so on should also not exist; because it is subsumed within the three vehicles; like your Buddha Vehicle. In the extensive discussion of that treatise it is said: If you say that what possesses an essence is precisely the Śrāvakayāna as the essence of the Mahāyāna, because by this vehicle one attains Great Bodhi, there are four reasons why the Śrāvakayāna cannot be taken as the essence of the Mahāyāna: First, because it is not complete, since the Śrāvaka [practices] solely for self-benefit and not for the benefit of others. Second, because it is not uncontradicted: some say that teaching the Dharma of self-benefit to others is itself benefiting others. This is not so; although one establishes others through self-benefit, they themselves seek nirvāṇa, and one cannot by this attain Great Bodhi. Third, because it is not the practice: some say that if one practices the practices of the Śrāvakayāna for a long time, one then attains Great Bodhi. This is not so; because the Śrāvakayāna is not an expedient means for Great Bodhi, one cannot attain Great Bodhi through long practice of what is not an expedient means, just as milking a cow's horn does not yield milk. Fourth, because it is not the instruction: because the instruction of the Mahāyāna does not exist in the Śrāvakayāna, the Śrāvakayāna is not itself the Mahāyāna. Furthermore, on account of five causes the Mahāyāna and the Śrāvakayāna are contrary: 1. The aspiration of mind is different; 2. The instruction is different; 3. The expedient means are different, for all [Śrāvaka means] are for attaining nirvāṇa for oneself; 4. The sustaining power is different, because the aggregates of merit and wisdom are meager; 5. The duration is different, because liberation is attained in three lifetimes; the Mahāyāna is the reverse of this, hence it is not identical to the Śrāvakayāna. Some say that since the Mahāyāna has no fruition based on practice, it is not spoken by the Buddha.