成唯識論了義燈 1.91

1.91

論：今造此論，下有三段文。西明云：如次安惠、難陀、護法，本疏有等。《要集》云：二不同者，所承有異，然彼有說，皆有等言，意或不違。今謂西明，若云唯安惠等，如次配者，定是不當。十師俱釋本頌，豈餘七師不明本師造論意耶？本疏主是糅論文人，故定說是，既不言唯，不違本疏，等言定是，何須言或？

Treatise: 'Now, in composing this treatise...' Below there are three passages of text. Ximing says: '[These correspond] respectively to Sthiramati, Nanda, and Dharmapāla; the root commentary has "and others" [etc.].' The Yaoji says: 'The difference between the two is because what they received was different; however, in that explanation, both have the word "etc.", so their intent is perhaps not contradictory.' Now I say: if Ximing stated that this only matched Sthiramati and the others in order, that is definitely improper. All ten masters explained the root verses; how could the remaining seven masters not have clarified our basic master's intention in composing the treatise? The author of the root commentary [Kuiji] was the one who compiled and synthesized the text of the treatise; therefore his explanation is definitely correct. Since he did not say 'only', he does not contradict the root commentary. The word 'etc.' is definitely correct; why need one say 'perhaps'?