成唯識論了義燈 4.28

4.28

《疏》云：又非唯體至離此說大乘無故者。彼《莊嚴論》以智為大乘體，此以教、理、行、果皆是故。不言體，但總言大乘。若不爾，大乘教理是何所攝？大乘以何為體，若唯取智有局義故。

The Commentary states: 'Moreover, it is not merely the substance... because apart from this, there is no other Mahāyāna to be taught.' That Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra takes wisdom to be the substance of the Mahāyāna, whereas this [treatise] takes teaching, principle, practice, and fruit all to be so. Hence it does not speak of 'substance', but only speaks generally of the 'Mahāyāna'. If it were not so, under what would the teaching and principle of the Mahāyāna be subsumed? What would the Mahāyāna take as its substance? If one were to take only wisdom, it would have the drawback of being too narrow.