成唯識論演祕 3.737

3.737

然非佛語而有多義，一、外道等教名非佛語。內教三藏並名佛語，大小乘論雖非佛說，後諸聖等集佛言成，得名佛語。二、佛親說者名為佛語。大小乘論雖集佛言，非佛所說，皆非佛語。若准前義，佛說為宗，大小乘論皆為異品，因於彼轉，故成不定。若言佛語即是佛說，無不定者，理亦不然，非大小論皆是如來在世親談、親自印證。縱集如來昔日少言，然今懸論，非佛親談名非佛說，終成異品，何非不定？又縱立者，許皆佛語，小乘敵者如《發智》等一分不許，此亦於他異喻因轉，何無過耶？依後義因於異品一分轉也，以《發智論》、《婆沙》二說，一云《發智》而是佛語，一云不是，是迦他延尼子所造。對於前師因於彼轉，故亦不定，疏依後義。

However, "not the word of the Buddha" has multiple meanings. First, the teachings of non-Buddhists and the like are called "not the word of the Buddha." The three baskets of the internal teaching are all called "the word of the Buddha"; although the treatises of the Great and Small Vehicles were not spoken by the Buddha, later holy ones compiled the Buddha's words to form them, so they may be called "the word of the Buddha." Second, what was personally spoken by the Buddha is called "the word of the Buddha." Although the treatises of the Great and Small Vehicles compile the Buddha's words, they were not spoken by the Buddha, so all are "not the word of the Buddha." If one goes by the former meaning, taking "spoken by the Buddha" as the thesis, the treatises of the Great and Small Vehicles are all dissimilar instances (vipakṣa); since the reason applies to them, it becomes inconclusive (anaikāntika). If one says that "the word of the Buddha" is simply "spoken by the Buddha" and thus has no inconclusiveness, this reasoning is also incorrect: it is not the case that all treatises of the Great and Small Vehicles were personally delivered and personally certified by the Tathāgata while he was in the world. Even if they compile a few words from the Tathāgata's past, yet discussed remotely now, what was not personally spoken by the Buddha is termed "not spoken by the Buddha," so in the end they become dissimilar instances; how could it not be inconclusive? Moreover, even if the proponent concedes that all are the word of the Buddha, an opponent of the Hīnayāna, such as in the Jñānaprasthāna and so forth, does not concede one part [to be Mahāyāna]; this reason also applies to the other's dissimilar example—how could it be without fault? According to the latter meaning, the reason applies to a portion of the dissimilar instances, because the Jñānaprasthāna and Mahāvibhāṣā have two views: one says the Jñānaprasthāna is the word of the Buddha, while the other says it is not, but was composed by Kātyāyanīputra. With respect to the former master, the reason applies to it, and thus it is also inconclusive. The Commentary follows the latter meaning.