成唯識論述記 4.142

4.142

述曰：大乘意深，不可隨文而取其義便生誹謗。彼廣中言：若汝言佛語有三相，入修多羅顯示毘尼不違法空。汝大乘一切法無自性而為教授，違此三理故非佛語。今不違三相故是佛語，入自大乘修多羅故；現自煩惱毘尼故。菩薩以分別為煩惱，廣大甚深即是菩薩法空，不違此空得大菩提故。量云：大乘是佛語；許詮深理義異於文契經攝故；如殺害於父母等言。彼《阿含經》中亦以為義異文故，謂覺不堅為堅等，貪愛以為父等。

The Commentary states: The Mahāyāna's intent is profound; one must not take its meaning strictly according to the letter and thereupon produce slander. In the extensive discussion of that [treatise] it is said: If you say that the Buddha's word has three characteristics—entering the sūtras, manifesting the vinaya, and not contradicting the emptiness of phenomena—and your Mahāyāna gives instruction on all phenomena lacking self-nature, which contradicts these three principles, hence it is not the Buddha's word; now, because it does not contradict the three characteristics, it is the Buddha's word: because it enters its own Mahāyāna sūtras; and because it manifests the vinaya for one's own afflictions. For bodhisattvas, discrimination is the affliction; the vast and profound is precisely the bodhisattva's emptiness of phenomena, and because not contradicting this emptiness yields Great Bodhi. The syllogism is: The Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word; because it is accepted as expressing profound principles whose meaning differs from the letter, and is subsumed under sūtra; like the statements on 'slaying mother and father' and so on. In those *Āgamas* it is also taken that the meaning differs from the letter, as in regarding what is non-solid as solid, and taking craving-attachment as mother, and so on.