成唯識論了義燈 5.264

5.264

此不解意。本釋意云：雖信大乘不將究竟唯有一乘，信有三故，如求聲聞信有獨覺，不將究竟唯一獨覺無聲聞乘。又雖信大性，自無力能證得大故，《法花論》為信種種乘異，但說一乘故。西明云：經不為說不求一切智故。今者為說令入滅定故。今者問：彼何大教中令入？為說《阿毘達摩解深密》等，皆不為說。至《涅槃經》但說六故，《阿含》等經已密說故。故知建立者是信有義。故此《論》云：於藏識教未信受者，無色不起已信，生彼亦得現前，不言成立藏識已後信者方起故。

This fails to understand the intent. The intent of the original commentary is: although they have faith in the Mahāyāna, they do not consider that ultimately there is only the One Vehicle, because they believe there are three; just as one seeking to be a śrāvaka believes there are pratyekabuddhas, but does not take it as ultimate that there is solely the pratyekabuddha and no śrāvaka vehicle. Furthermore, although they have faith in the Mahāyāna nature, they themselves lack the capacity to realize the Great; therefore, the Fahua lun says that for the sake of those with faith in various diverse vehicles, it teaches only the One Vehicle. Ximing says: 'The sūtras do not teach it to them because they do not seek omniscience. Now it is taught to them in order to make them enter the attainment of cessation.' Now I ask: in which Mahāyāna teaching does it make them enter? Teachings like the Abhidharma or the Saṃdhinirmocana do not teach it to them. Reaching the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, it speaks only of six [consciousnesses], because sūtras such as the Āgamas have already taught it esotericly. Therefore we know that 'established' means having faith in its existence. Thus this treatise says: 'For those who have not believed and accepted the teaching on the storehouse consciousness, it does not arise in the formless realm; having believed, when born there it also manifests'; it does not say that it is only after logically establishing the storehouse consciousness that those who believe give rise to it.