成唯識論了義燈 1.78

1.78

三、正科解，如疏具辨。西明云：然諸釋中，所宗各異。護法、難陀等，多述宗旨，會釋違文。火辨、親勝正釋本頌，以標論意。安惠菩薩建立比量，斥他宗失。由斯諸本，別行攝義，皆不周悉者。今意未詳。撿論上下，未見安惠偏多破斥。准本疏釋，廣頌上兩句破我法，已下云多護法文。親承三藏，執筆綴文，糅唯識人，傳定不謬。餘非執筆，縱時諮問，多意定之。所有判文，論大綱紀，非可為定合譯意者，如《樞要》說。

Third, the outline and explanation of the text proper are fully distinguished in the Commentary. Ximing says: "However, among the various commentaries, the tenets adhered to differ. Dharmapāla, Nanda, and others mostly set forth the fundamental tenets and reconcile conflicting texts. Citrabhāna and Bandhuśrī directly explain the root verses to indicate the treatise's intention. The Bodhisattva Sthiramati establishes logical inferences to refute the errors of other traditions. Because of this, when the various texts circulated separately, their subsumption of the meaning was never comprehensive." Now, this intention is not yet clear. Examining the treatise from beginning to end, we do not see Sthiramati predominantly refuting others. According to the original Commentary's explanation, the extensive commentary on the first two lines of the verse refuting self and dharmas, as well as the text from there below, is mostly Dharmapāla's writing. The one who personally received it from the Tripiṭaka master, held the brush to compose the text, and compiled the *Cheng weishi lun* transmitted it with certainty and without error. Others did not hold the brush; even if they inquired at times, they mostly settled it by their own opinions. All their textual judgments regarding the great guiding principles of the treatise cannot be taken as definitively according with the translation's intention, as explained in the *Shuyao*.