成唯識論了義燈 4.29

4.29

問：此論七因與《顯揚論》十因有何差別？答：多小開合有差別故。八因同《莊嚴論》：一、先不記別故；二、今不可知故。即是同行，與小同時行，寧知大乘獨非佛說；三、多有所作故。即《莊嚴論》能行此法智，依信修行得三惠等：四、極重障故，即《莊嚴論》生怖畏等，由畏大乘不順怖謗成重障故，此意於小教順修得益，怖謗獲罪，既是佛說，大乘亦爾，故是佛說，或俱第七收，《莊嚴》約能所斷合，《顯揚》別開，就能斷中加行後得開之為二。廣略別故；五、非尋伺境。即《莊嚴》第三不行；六、證大覺故。即《莊嚴論》四者成就，此意汝許先佛得菩提者說，今佛亦證大覺亦說大教。然《顯揚》云：若未成佛能說佛教不應道理者，反顯證大覺定，說大教即應道理；七、無第三乘過失故者。即《莊嚴論》第五體者，此意既許餘佛有大乘體，今佛亦有，大乘無異，體是一故，此佛無者，即是此佛無第三乘體，故成過失；八者、此若無有，應無一切智者成過故者，即《莊嚴》第六非體，此言非者無也，既無大乘體，應無一切智，誰出於世說聲聞乘；九、緣此為境，如理思惟，對治一切諸煩惱故，即《莊嚴》第七；十、不應如言取彼意故。即《莊嚴》第八。故十與八但開合別，事意不差，以《莊嚴論頌》及《顯揚論》俱無著造故。

Question: What is the difference between the seven reasons in this treatise and the ten reasons in the Prakaraṇāryavācā? Answer: There are differences because of greater or lesser expansion and condensation. Eight reasons are the same as in the Sūtrālaṅkāra: 1. Because it was not predicted beforehand; 2. Because it cannot be known now—that is, practicing together, practicing at the same time as the Hīnayāna, how could one know that the Mahāyāna alone is not the Buddha's word?; 3. Because it accomplishes much—that is, in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, the wisdom able to practice this Dharma, relying on faith and practice, obtains the three kinds of wisdom and so forth; 4. Because of extremely grave hindrances—that is, in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, giving rise to fear and so forth: by fearing the Mahāyāna, not complying with it, fearing and slandering it, one incurs grave hindrances. The meaning is: if complying with and practicing the Hīnayāna teaching brings benefit, and fearing and slandering it brings sin, since it is the Buddha's word, the Mahāyāna is likewise, and therefore is the Buddha's word. Alternatively, both are subsumed under the seventh: the Sūtrālaṅkāra combines the antidote and what is severed, whereas the Prakaraṇāryavācā separates them; regarding what is able to sever, it divides it into the preparatory and the subsequently attained, due to the distinction between broad and concise; 5. It is not an object of discursive thought (vitarka-vicāra)—that is, the third in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, 'not functioning'; 6. Because it realizes great awakening—that is, the fourth in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, 'attainment'; the meaning here is, you accept that those who attained bodhi in the past spoke [the Dharma], and the present Buddha also realized great awakening, so he also spoke the great teaching. However, the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: 'If one who has not become a Buddha could speak the Buddha's teaching, that would not be reasonable,' which inversely demonstrates that realizing great awakening definitely means speaking the great teaching, which is indeed reasonable; 7. Because of the fault of having no third vehicle—that is, the fifth in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, 'substance'; the meaning here is, since you accept that other Buddhas have the substance of the Mahāyāna, the present Buddha also has it, for the Mahāyāna is not different, its substance being one; if this Buddha did not have it, then this Buddha would lack the substance of the third vehicle, and thus a fault would result; 8. If this were not existent, there would be the fault that there is no omniscient one—that is, the sixth in the Sūtrālaṅkāra, 'non-substance'; here 'non' means non-existent: if there were no substance of the Mahāyāna, there would be no omniscient one, and who would then appear in the world to teach the Śrāvakayāna?; 9. Because taking this as cognitive object and properly contemplating it serves as the antidote against all defilements—that is, the seventh in the Sūtrālaṅkāra; 10. Because one should not grasp that intention literally—that is, the eighth in the Sūtrālaṅkāra. Therefore, the ten and the eight differ only in expansion and condensation; the subject matter and intent do not differ, because the verses of the Sūtrālaṅkāra and the Prakaraṇāryavācā were both composed by Asanga.