大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.27

1.27

說婆羅門最勝等者。為鬪諍劫諸婆羅門貪於名利及恭敬故作如是計。婆羅門種是其最勝。剎帝利等是下劣種。白色黑色當知亦然。是梵王子梵王口生。剎帝利等從臍膝脚跟處生。婆羅門種可得清淨。性能修習真梵行故。今應問彼計最勝者。婆羅門種有父母不。若言無者。應是化生。汝傍現事不應道理。若言有者。言修梵行餘不能修。不應道理。又從種故名之為勝。謂從戒聞得名為勝。若由種類故為勝者。汝論中說由祠祀中聞勝戒勝。不應道理。若由戒聞得名勝者。說婆羅門是最勝種餘是下劣。不應道理。

Regarding "asserting that Brahmins are supreme," and so forth: In the age of discord, the Brahmins, out of greed for fame, gain, and reverence, formulated this supposition: "The Brahmin caste is the supreme; the Kṣatriyas and others are inferior castes. The white and black [castes] should be known to be likewise. [Brahmins] are the sons of Brahmā, born from Brahmā's mouth; Kṣatriyas and others are born from his navel, knees, and heels. The Brahmin caste alone can attain purity, because its nature can cultivate true brahma-conduct." Now one should question those who assert this supremacy: Does the Brahmin caste have parents or not? If they say they do not, they must be apparitionally born, but for you to go against observed fact is unreasonable. If they say they do, then to claim that [only they] cultivate brahma-conduct and others cannot is unreasonable. Furthermore, are they called supreme because of their caste, or are they called supreme because of morality and learning? If they are supreme because of caste, then what is stated in your own treatises—that supremacy is due to learning and morality in the midst of sacrificial rites—is unreasonable. If they are called supreme because of morality and learning, then asserting that Brahmins are the supreme caste and the others are inferior is unreasonable.