宗鏡錄 51.27

51.27

答。置極成言。簡兩般不極成色。小乘二十部中。除一說部。說假部。說出世部。雞胤部等四。餘十六部。皆許最後身菩薩染污色。及佛有漏色。大乘不許。是一般不極成色。大乘說他方佛色。及佛無漏色。經部雖許他方佛色。而不許是無漏。餘十九部皆不許有。并前兩師不極成色。若不言極成。但言真故色。是有法。定不離眼識是宗。且言色時。許之不許。盡包有法之中。在前小乘許者。大乘不許。今若立為唯識。便犯一分自所別不極成。亦犯一分違宗之失。又大乘許者。小乘不許。今立為有法。即犯他一分所別不極成。及至舉初三攝眼所不攝因。便犯自他隨一一分所依不成。前陳無極成色為所依故。今具簡此四般故。置極成言。

Answer: Positing the words 'universally established' eliminates two kinds of unestablished matter. Among the twenty Hīnayāna schools, excluding the four schools of the Ekavyāvahārika, Prajñaptivāda, Lokottaravāda, and Kaukkutika, the remaining sixteen schools all accept the defiled matter of a bodhisattva in their final existence, as well as the tainted matter of a Buddha. The Mahāyāna does not accept these; this is one kind of unestablished matter. The Mahāyāna speaks of the matter of Buddhas of other directions and the untainted matter of a Buddha; although the Sautrāntika accepts the matter of Buddhas of other directions, it does not accept that it is untainted; the remaining nineteen schools all reject its existence. Together with the former, these are matter not universally established between the two masters. If one did not say 'universally established' but merely said 'In ultimate truth, matter is the subject, and it is definitely not separate from visual consciousness is the thesis,' then when saying 'matter', whether accepted or unaccepted, all would be encompassed within the subject. As for what was previously accepted by the Hīnayāna but not accepted by the Mahāyāna, if one now posits it as consciousness-only, one would commit [the fallacy of] the partial non-establishment of one's own qualificand (aśrāyāsiddha / dharmi-asiddhi), and also commit the error of partial contradiction of one's own thesis. Furthermore, what is accepted by the Mahāyāna is not accepted by the Hīnayāna; if one now posits it as the subject, one commits [the fallacy of] the partial non-establishment of the other's qualificand. And when adducing the reason 'because it is subsumed under the first three and not subsumed under the eye,' one would commit the non-establishment of the substratum (āśrayāsiddha) for either one part of oneself or the other, because in the subject-phrase there would be no universally established matter to serve as the substratum. Now, in order to fully eliminate these four kinds of [fallacies], the words 'universally established' are posited.