大乘莊嚴經論 成宗品
這大乘，真是佛說的嗎？——本論當面把這口疑網一一拆開
有人疑：大乘並非佛親口所說，那它的功德從何而來？本品呈現本論對這項質疑的回應，其中列出八條理由，逐一回問：佛若見有冒充正法的假貨，眼明、護法、智無礙的祂，怎會不示警？聲聞乘與大乘自來同行於世，憑什麼單挑這一個說它非佛說？深廣如此的法，連臆測的人也信不來、行不出——這正見其非凡品。兩乘各有各的路、各的果，不可混同；而大乘的廣大與甚深，恰是成佛的真方便。
本論立得周密，也藏著一句給學人的體己話：在『深而未及』的法面前，最穩當的不是掉頭妄怖、輕率謗毀，而是仰信、闕疑、求解。
至於大乘究竟是不是佛說，那樁公案，且看本論怎麼立、怎麼答。
Is this Great Vehicle really the Buddha's word? — the treatise takes the net of doubt apart, knot by knot, to your face
Someone doubts: the Great Vehicle is not what the Buddha spoke with his own mouth — so where do its qualities come from? This chapter presents the treatise’s answer to that challenge. It sets out eight causes and, one by one, puts the question back: if the Buddha saw a counterfeit of the true Dharma coming, then he — clear of eye, guardian of the Dharma, unobstructed in knowledge — how could he fail to give warning? The Listener's Vehicle and the Great Vehicle have always run together in the world; on what grounds single out this one alone and call it not the Buddha's word? A Dharma this deep and vast, which even the man of conjecture cannot believe or bring to practice — that is the very mark of its rare quality. The two vehicles each have their own road and their own fruit, and are not to be confused; while the vastness and the profundity of the Great Vehicle are precisely the true method of becoming a Buddha.
The treatise's case is closely built, and within it there is also a word of intimate counsel to the student: before a Dharma that is deep and not yet within your reach, the surest thing is not to turn away in groundless dread or slander it lightly, but to look up in faith, to leave your doubts open, and to seek understanding.
As for whether the Great Vehicle is, in the end, the Buddha's word — that case: see how the treatise sets it up and how its replies proceed.
〔釋〕有人疑此大乘非佛所說，云何有此功德可得？我今決彼疑網，成立大乘真是佛說。
【偈】
不記亦同行， 不行亦成就，
體、非體、能治、 文異八因成。
〔釋〕成立大乘，略有八因；一者不記、二者同行、三者不行、四者成就、五者體、六者非體、七者能治、八者文異。第一不記者，先法已盡後佛正出，若此大乘非是正法，何故世尊初不記耶？譬如未來有異，世尊即記。此不記故，知是佛說。第二同行者，聲聞乘與大乘非先非後一時同行，汝云何知此大乘獨非佛說？第三不行者，大乘深廣，非忖度人之所能信，況復能行外道制諸論，彼種不可得，是故不行。由彼不行，故是佛說。第四成就者，若汝言餘得菩提者說有大乘，非是今佛說有大乘。若作此執，則反成我義。彼得菩提，亦即是佛，如是說故。第五體者，若汝言餘佛有大乘體，此佛無大乘體。若作此執，亦成我義。大乘無異，體是一故。第六非體者，若汝言此佛無大乘體，則聲聞乘亦無體。若汝言聲聞乘是佛說故有體，大乘非佛說故無體。若作此執，有大過失。若無佛乘而有佛出說聲聞乘者，理不應故。第七能治者，由依此法修行得無分別智，由無分別智能破諸煩惱。由此因故，不得言無大乘。第八文異者，大乘甚深非如文義，不應一向隨文取義，言非佛語。復次若汝言初不記者，由佛無功用心捨故。若作此執，是義不然。
【偈】
諸佛三因緣， 現見亦護法，
如來智無礙， 捨者不應爾。
〔釋〕若此大乘非佛說者，是為大障。諸佛有三因緣，何故不記？一無功用智恒起、是眼恒見。二恒作正勤、守護正法。三如來智力無有障礙。由此三因，汝言捨而不記者，不應道理。復次若汝言有體者，即聲聞乘是大乘體。何以故？即以此乘得大菩提故。若作此執，是義不然。
【偈】
非全非不違， 非行非教授，
是故聲聞乘， 非即是大乘。
〔釋〕有四因緣，非即以聲聞乘為大乘體，非全故、非不違故、非行故、非教授故。非全者，聲聞乘無有利他教授，但為自厭離欲解脫而教授故。非不違者，若言聲聞乘以自方便而教授他，即是他利教授。是義不然。何以故？雖以自利安他，彼亦自求涅槃勤行方便，不可以此得大菩提故。非行者，若汝言若能久行聲聞乘行則得大菩提果。是義不然，非方便故。聲聞乘非大菩提方便，不以久行，非方便能得大乘果。譬如搆角求乳，不可得故。非教授者，如大乘教授，聲聞乘無。是故聲聞乘不得即是大乘。復次今更示汝相違義。
【偈】
發心與教授， 方便及住持，
時節下上乘， 五事一切異。
〔釋〕聲聞乘與大乘有五種相違，一發心異、二教授異、三方便異、四住持異、五時節異。聲聞乘若發心、若教授、若勤方便，皆為自得涅槃故。住持亦少，福智聚小故。時節亦少，乃至三生得解脫故。大乘不爾，發心、教授、勤方便皆為利他故。住持亦多，福智聚大故。時節亦多，經三大阿僧祇劫故。如是一切相違，是故不應以小乘行而得大乘果。復次若汝言佛語有三相：一者入修多羅、二者顯示毘尼、三者不違法空。汝以一切法無自性而為教授，違此三相，故非佛語。若作此執，是義不然。
【偈】
入自大乘經， 現自煩惱滅，
廣大甚深義， 不違自法空。
〔釋〕今此大乘亦不違三相，入自大乘修多羅故、現自煩惱毘尼故，由菩薩以分別為煩惱故。廣大甚深即是菩薩法空，不違此空得大菩提故。是故此乘與三相不相違。復次前說不行者，我今更示此義令汝信受。
【偈】
有依及不定， 緣俗亦不普，
退屈忖度人， 寧解大乘義？
〔釋〕由有五因，彼忖度者不能得入大乘境界，彼智有依故、不定故、緣俗故、不普故、退屈故。彼有依者，智依教生，非證智故。不定者，有時更有異智生故。緣俗者，忖度世諦，不及第一義諦故。不普者，雖緣世諦但得少解，不解一切故。退屈者，諍論辯窮即默然故。大乘者即無所依乃至終不退屈。不退屈者，無量經中有百千偈說大乘法，由得此法辯才無盡，是故大乘非忖度人境。問：汝說聲聞乘非佛菩提方便，若爾何者是耶？
【偈】
廣大及甚深， 成熟無分別，
說此二方便， 即是無上乘。
〔釋〕廣大者，謂諸神通，由極勤方便令他信解故。甚深者，謂無分別智，由難行故。如其次第，一為成熟眾生、二為成熟佛法，即說此二為無上菩提方便，此二方便即是無上乘體。問：若爾，有人於中怖畏，過失云何？
【偈】
不應怖而怖， 由怖被燒然，
怖引非福故， 長時過患起。
〔釋〕若人非怖畏處妄生怖畏，是人即墮極熱惡道而被燒然。何以故？由此怖畏引大非福聚生，由此罪故能令是人經無量劫受大熱惱。問：彼人復有何因生此怖畏？
【偈】
非性非法朋， 少慧少因力，
怖此深妙法， 退失大菩提。
〔釋〕若人生怖，由四因緣：一非種性，離菩薩性故。二非法朋，離善知識故。三少慧力，未解大乘法空故。四少因力，先世不種諸波羅蜜自性善根故。由此因緣，於甚深妙法橫生怖想，由此想故於大菩提福智二聚應得不得，是名為退。汝今應知，此退過患最極深重。已說怖過及怖因，次說不應怖畏因。
【偈】
無異即互無， 有異即險處，
無譬種種說， 續說多門說。
非有如文義， 諸佛甚深體，
聰慧正觀人， 應知不應怖。
〔釋〕無異即互無者，若汝言聲聞乘即是大乘，無異大乘體。若如是者，即聲聞、辟支佛乘復無有體。何以故？由得佛故。如是一切皆是佛乘，何因怖耶？有異即險處者，若汝許有異大乘體，此體即是一切智道。最為第一險處，由難度故，此應仰信，何因怖耶？無譬者，於一時中無二大乘並出可以相比，何因怖一不怖二耶？種種說者，今此大乘非獨說空，亦說大福智聚。應解此意，何因獨怖空耶？續說者，一切時中決定相續說空，汝非乍聞，何因怖耶？多門說者，彼彼經中多門異說顯大要用，破諸分別，得無分別智。若異此說無大用者，如來但應言空，不說如、法性、實際等。既說有多門，何因獨怖空耶？非有如文義者，大乘甚深不如文義，何因隨文取義而怖空耶？諸佛甚深體者，佛性甚深卒難覺識，應求了別，何因怖耶？由如是等因緣故，聰慧正觀人於此大乘不應怖畏。已說不應怖畏因，次說能行此法智。
【偈】
隨次聞思修， 得法及得慧，
此智行此法， 未得勿非毀。
〔釋〕若人最初依善知識能起正聞，次於正義能起正憶，次於真實境界得生正智，次從彼彼得證法果，次從彼後起解脫智，是人此智隨深入遠能行此法。汝若自無此智，不應決定言非佛語。已說能行此法智，次遮怖畏此法句。
【偈】
不解解不深， 深非思度解，
解深得解脫， 諸怖不應爾。
〔釋〕不解者，若汝言如是深法非我所解。如是起怖畏者，不應爾。解不深者，若汝言佛解亦不深。如其解深，何故說深？如是起怖畏者，不應爾。深非思度解者，若汝言何故此深非思量境界？如是起怖畏者，不應爾。解深得解脫者，若汝言何故獨解深義能得解脫，非思量人能得解脫？如是起怖畏者，不應爾。如是已遮怖畏此法句，次以不信成立大乘。
【偈】
由小信界伴， 不解深大法，
由汝不解故， 成我無上乘。
〔釋〕小信者，狹劣信解故。小界者，阿梨耶識中熏習小種子故。小伴者，相似信界為眷屬故。此三若小，則不信別有大乘。由此不信，則成我所立是無上法。已說成立大乘，次遮謗毀大乘。
【偈】
隨聞而得覺， 未聞慎勿毀，
無量餘未聞， 謗者成癡業。
〔釋〕汝隨少聞得有覺悟，不應隨聞復生謗毀。汝於未聞，無信可爾。何以故？不積善故未聞者多，慎勿謗毀。汝無簡別若生謗毀，更增癡業，壞前聞故。已遮謗毀，次遮邪思。
【偈】
如文取義時， 師心退真慧，
謗說及輕法， 緣此大過生。
〔釋〕師心者，謂自見取，非智者邊求義故。退真慧者，如實真解未得退故。謗說者，毀善說故。輕法者，嫉所聞故。緣此非福，次身受大苦報，是名大過起。已遮邪思，次遮惡意。
【偈】
惡意自性惡， 不善不應起，
況移於善處， 應捨大過故。
〔釋〕惡意者，是憎嫉心。自性惡者，此心是自性罪，尚不可於過失法中起，何況於非過法中起，是故急應須捨大過患故。成宗品究竟。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
有人懷疑：這大乘並非佛所說，哪來這些功德可得？釋文答道：如今要破除這疑網，成立「大乘真是佛說」。
不記亦同行，不行亦成就， 體、非體、能治、文異八因成。
成立大乘是佛說，略有八個理由：
- 不記：前佛之法將盡、後佛才出世時，世尊都會預記未來之異。若這大乘不是正法，世尊起初為何不預記（說『將有大乘冒充正法』）？正因不曾這樣預記，可知大乘是佛說。
- 同行：聲聞乘與大乘，不分先後、同時並行於世。你憑什麼斷定唯獨大乘不是佛說？
- 不行：大乘深廣，不是憑臆測的人所能信、更不是所能行；連外道造的種種論裡，也找不到大乘這樣的法種。正因外道行不出來，可知它是佛說。
- 成就：你若說『是別的成佛者說了大乘，不是現在這位佛說的』——這話反倒成全了我：那位成菩提者既然也是佛，可見『佛說大乘』這事成立。
- 體：你若說『別的佛有大乘之體，這位佛沒有』——也成全了我：大乘無二、其體是一。
- 非體：你若說『這位佛沒有大乘之體』，那麼聲聞乘也該沒有體。你若說「聲聞乘是佛說故有體，大乘非佛說故無體」，那有大過失：哪有沒佛乘、卻有佛出世來說聲聞乘的道理？
- 能治：依這大乘修行，能得無分別智；由無分別智，能破諸煩惱。有這對治之效，就不能說沒有大乘。
- 文異：大乘甚深，意義不照字面；不該一味隨文取義，就說它不是佛語。
〔問〕你若說『佛起初不預記，是因為佛以無功用心、自然捨置不記』——〔答〕這話不對（下偈答）。
諸佛三因緣，現見亦護法， 如來智無礙，捨者不應爾。
若說大乘非佛說，這是極大的障難。諸佛有三種因緣，怎會『捨置不記』？一、無功用的智恆常現起、法眼恆常照見；二、恆作正勤、守護正法；三、如來的智力毫無障礙。憑這三因，你說佛「捨而不記」，講不通。 〔問〕你又說『聲聞乘就是大乘之體』（因為依聲聞乘也能得大菩提）——〔答〕這話也不對（下偈答）。
非全非不違，非行非教授， 是故聲聞乘，非即是大乘。
有四個理由，說聲聞乘不就是大乘之體：
- 非全：聲聞乘沒有「利他」的教授，只為自己厭離、求解脫而教授。
- 非不違：你若說『聲聞乘也以自己的方便教導他人，就算利他教授』——不對。雖說以自利順帶安他，但他自己仍只求涅槃、勤修方便，不能憑這個得大菩提。
- 非行：你若說『久行聲聞乘之行，就能得大菩提果』——不對，那不是大菩提的方便。聲聞乘本非大菩提的方便，再久行也得不出大乘果，就像『擠牛角求奶』，怎麼擠也擠不出。
- 非教授：大乘有的那套教授，聲聞乘裡沒有。
所以聲聞乘不就是大乘。〔問〕再給你看二者「相違」之處。
發心與教授，方便及住持， 時節下上乘，五事一切異。
聲聞乘與大乘有五種相違：
- 發心異、2. 教授異、3. 方便異：聲聞乘的發心、教授、勤修方便，都只為自得涅槃；大乘則都為利他。
- 住持異：聲聞乘的住持（攝持之力）少，因福德智慧之聚小；大乘多，因福智聚大。
- 時節異：聲聞乘所需時節少，乃至三生便得解脫；大乘多，須經三大阿僧祇劫（極漫長的修行時程）。
這一切都相違，所以不該以小乘之行，去求大乘之果。 〔問〕你又說『佛語有三相：一入修多羅（契經）、二顯示毘尼（戒律）、三不違法空；你大乘以「一切法無自性」為教，違了這三相，所以非佛語』——〔答〕這話不對（下偈答）。
入自大乘經，現自煩惱滅， 廣大甚深義，不違自法空。
如今這大乘也不違那三相：它入於自宗的大乘契經、現顯自宗的煩惱對治（菩薩把「分別」當作煩惱來斷，這就是它的毘尼）；它的廣大甚深之義，正是菩薩所修的「法空」，不違這法空而得大菩提。所以大乘與三相並不相違。 〔問〕前面說的「不行」，再給你說明白，好令你信受。
有依及不定，緣俗亦不普， 退屈忖度人，寧解大乘義？
由五個原因，那憑臆測之人入不了大乘境界：他的智是有依的（依著教而生、不是親證之智）、不定的（時或又生別的見解）、緣俗的（只測度世俗諦、達不到第一義諦）、不普的（雖測世諦也只得少分、不解一切）、退屈的（一爭辯到理屈，就默然無語）。大乘之智卻無所依、乃至終不退屈——無量經中有百千偈宣說大乘之法，得了這法便辯才無盡。所以大乘不是憑臆測之人所能到的境界。 〔問〕你說聲聞乘不是佛菩提的方便，那什麼才是？
廣大及甚深，成熟無分別， 說此二方便，即是無上乘。
廣大，指諸神通——以極勤的方便，令他人信解（這是為「成熟眾生」）。甚深，指無分別智——因為難行（這是為「成熟佛法」）。依次說這兩者：一為成熟眾生、二為成熟佛法。這『廣大、甚深』二方便，就是無上菩提的方便，也就是無上乘的體。 〔問〕若是這樣，有人對此心生怖畏，過失是什麼？
不應怖而怖，由怖被燒然， 怖引非福故，長時過患起。
若有人在『不該怖畏』之處妄生怖畏（怖畏這大乘深法），這人就要墮入極熱的惡道、被火燒然。為什麼？因為這怖畏會引生極大的『非福之聚』，由這罪業，能令此人經無量劫受大熱惱。 〔問〕這人又是什麼緣故生起這怖畏？
非性非法朋，少慧少因力， 怖此深妙法，退失大菩提。
若有人生怖畏，由四種因緣：一、非種性（缺菩薩的種性）；二、非法朋（遠離善知識）；三、少慧力（還沒解得大乘法空）；四、少因力（前世沒種下諸波羅蜜這類自性善根）。由這些緣故，對甚深妙法橫生怖想；由這怖想，本該得的大菩提福智二聚卻得不到，這就叫「退」。要知道，這「退」的過患極其深重。 說完怖畏的過失與成因，接著說「不應怖畏」的道理。
無異即互無，有異即險處， 無譬種種說，續說多門說。 非有如文義，諸佛甚深體， 聰慧正觀人，應知不應怖。
釋文列出多重道理，說明聰慧而正觀的人不該怖畏大乘：
- 無異即互無：你若說『聲聞乘就是大乘、二者無別』，那聲聞、辟支佛乘反而沒有體了（因為都成了佛乘）——既如此，一切皆是佛乘，還怖什麼？
- 有異即險處：你若承認大乘別有其體，那這體就是『一切智之道』、最為第一的『險峻高處』（因為難度）；對它只該仰信，怖它做什麼？
- 無譬（無可相比）：同一時中沒有兩個大乘並出可供相比——你何以怖這一個、卻不怖另一個？（可見怖畏無據。）
- 種種說：這大乘並非只說「空」，也說廣大的福智之聚；該體會這層意思，何必獨獨怖那「空」？
- 續說：一切時中，大乘決定相續地說空——你不是初次乍聞，怖什麼？
- 多門說：諸經以種種法門異說（如、法性、實際等），顯大乘的大用、破諸分別而得無分別智。若這些說法沒有大用，如來只說「空」就好，何必說這麼多門？既說多門，何必獨怖那「空」？
- 非有如文義：大乘甚深、不照字面，何必隨文取義而怖那「空」？
- 諸佛甚深體：佛性甚深、難以一下子覺識，該去求了別，怖它做什麼？
由這些緣故，聰慧正觀的人，對大乘不應怖畏。 說完不應怖畏的道理，接著說『能行此法的智』。
隨次聞思修，得法及得慧， 此智行此法，未得勿非毀。
若有人最初依善知識而能起「正聞」，接著對正義能起『正憶（正思）』，再對真實境界生起「正智」，再從中證得「法果」，再從此後起「解脫智」——這人的智隨著層層深入、行得了這大乘之法。你自己若還沒有這樣的智，就不該武斷地說它『不是佛語』。 說完能行此法的智，接著遮止「怖畏此法」的種種說辭。
不解解不深，深非思度解， 解深得解脫，諸怖不應爾。
針對四種因怖而起的話，釋文一一遮止：
- 『這深法不是我所能解』——因此而怖，不應該。
- 『佛所解的也未必深』——既是深法，何以還說它深？因此而怖，不應該。
- 『為什麼這深義不是思量所能及的境界？』——因此而怖，不應該。
- 『為什麼唯獨解深義的人能得解脫、思量之人不能？』——因此而怖，不應該。
（這些怖畏的藉口，都站不住。）說完遮止怖畏的說辭，接著『以你的不信，反成立大乘』。
由小信界伴，不解深大法， 由汝不解故，成我無上乘。
小信（狹劣的信解）、小界（阿賴耶識中所熏的種子小）、小伴（以相似的信、界之人為眷屬）——這三者若都小，便不信另有大乘。可是正因為你不信，反倒成全了我所立的『無上之法』（深法本就不是小信小界者所能信受的，你的不信恰恰印證它的高深）。 說完成立大乘，接著遮止「謗毀大乘」。
隨聞而得覺，未聞慎勿毀， 無量餘未聞，謗者成癡業。
你隨著所聞的少分而有所覺悟，就不該反過來對「所聞」生起謗毀。你對『沒聽過的』不生信，倒還罷了；可是要當心——因為未積善根，你沒聽過的還多得很，切莫謗毀。你若不加簡別就生謗毀，只會更增癡業，連先前所聞的也壞了。 遮止了謗毀，接著遮止「邪思」。
如文取義時，師心退真慧， 謗說及輕法，緣此大過生。
師心（只取自己的成見，不向有智者求義）、退真慧（如實的真解還沒得就退失了）、謗說（詆毀善說）、輕法（嫉妒所聞之法）——由這些，將招來非福，後身受大苦報，這就是「大過」之起。 遮止了邪思，接著遮止「惡意」。
惡意自性惡，不善不應起， 況移於善處，應捨大過故。
惡意，就是憎嫉之心。它『自性即惡』——這種心，連在『有過失的法』上都不該起，何況把它移到『沒有過失的法』（大乘）上？所以急該捨掉，以免大過患。
（成宗品到此為止。）
This chapter establishes that the Great Vehicle is the Buddha's word. Its argument unfolds through a sequence of doubts and replies.
Someone doubts: this Great Vehicle (大乘, mahāyāna) is not what the Buddha taught — so how could all these qualities be gained from it? The commentary replies: I will now break through that net of doubt and establish that the Great Vehicle truly is the Buddha's word.
No forewarning, yet arising together; not [the doubter's] practice, yet accomplishing; substance, non-substance, capacity to remedy, and difference of letter — by these eight causes it is established.
Establishing that the Great Vehicle is the Buddha's word, there are, in brief, eight causes:
- No forewarning: when the teaching of a former Buddha is about to be exhausted and a later Buddha appears in the world, the World-Honored One always forewarns of what will differ in the time to come. If this Great Vehicle were not the true Dharma, why did the World-Honored One not forewarn of it at the outset (saying, "there will arise a Great Vehicle counterfeiting the true Dharma")? Precisely because there was no such forewarning, we know the Great Vehicle is the Buddha's word.
- Arising together: the Listener's Vehicle (聲聞乘, the śrāvaka-yāna) and the Great Vehicle are neither earlier nor later — they run together in the world at one and the same time. On what grounds do you decide that the Great Vehicle alone is not the Buddha's word?
- Not [the doubter's] practice: the Great Vehicle is deep and vast; it is not something a person who relies on conjecture can believe, still less something he can practice. Even among the many treatises composed by the non-Buddhist paths, no such seed of the Great Vehicle is to be found. Precisely because [those outsiders] cannot bring it forth, we know it is the Buddha's word.
- Accomplishing: suppose you say, "some other one who attained awakening taught a Great Vehicle — it was not this present Buddha who taught a Great Vehicle." If you hold this, you only confirm my point: that one who attained awakening was likewise a Buddha, for it is said [that he too taught it] — so "a Buddha taught the Great Vehicle" is established.
- Substance: suppose you say, "some other Buddha has the substance of the Great Vehicle, but this Buddha does not." This too confirms my point: the Great Vehicle admits no difference — its substance is one.
- Non-substance: suppose you say, "this Buddha has no substance of the Great Vehicle" — then the Listener's Vehicle too would have no substance. And suppose you say, "the Listener's Vehicle, being the Buddha's word, has substance; the Great Vehicle, not being the Buddha's word, has none" — then you fall into a grave fault: for it makes no sense that, with no Buddha-Vehicle, a Buddha should nonetheless appear in the world to teach the Listener's Vehicle.
- Capacity to remedy: by practicing in reliance on this Great Vehicle, one gains non-conceptual knowledge (無分別智, nirvikalpa-jñāna); and by non-conceptual knowledge one can destroy the afflictions. Since it has this remedial power, one cannot say there is no Great Vehicle.
- Difference of letter: the Great Vehicle is deeply profound; its meaning does not follow the surface of the letter. One should not, in every case, take the meaning by following the letter and thereby say it is not the Buddha's word.
〔Question〕Suppose you say, "the Buddha gave no forewarning at the outset because, with an effortless mind, he simply set the matter aside and did not forewarn of it." 〔Answer〕This is not so (the next verse answers).
The Buddhas have three grounds — present seeing, and guarding the Dharma, and the Tathāgata's unobstructed knowledge; one who "sets it aside" — it cannot be so.
To say the Great Vehicle is not the Buddha's word is a grave obstruction. The Buddhas have three grounds — how could they "set it aside and give no forewarning"? First, effortless knowledge arises unceasingly, and the eye [of wisdom] sees unceasingly. Second, they ever exert right diligence and guard the true Dharma. Third, the Tathāgata's power of knowledge is wholly without obstruction. On these three grounds, your saying that the Buddha "set it aside and gave no forewarning" does not stand to reason.
〔Question〕Again you say, "the Listener's Vehicle is itself the substance of the Great Vehicle" (since by the Listener's Vehicle too one can attain great awakening). 〔Answer〕This too is not so (the next verse answers).
Not complete, not un-contradicting, not [its] practice, not [its] instruction — therefore the Listener's Vehicle is not itself the Great Vehicle.
There are four reasons why the Listener's Vehicle is not itself the substance of the Great Vehicle:
- Not complete: the Listener's Vehicle has no instruction for the benefit of others; it instructs only for one's own weariness [with saṃsāra], craving for release, and liberation.
- Not un-contradicting: suppose you say, "the Listener's Vehicle too, by its own methods, instructs others — and this counts as instruction for others' benefit." Not so. For though it settles others by way of self-benefit, [the listener] himself still only seeks nirvāṇa and diligently practices [his own] method; one cannot by this attain great awakening.
- Not [its] practice: suppose you say, "if one long practices the practice of the Listener's Vehicle, then one attains the fruit of great awakening." Not so, for it is not the method [for that]. The Listener's Vehicle is not the method for great awakening; no length of practice by a non-method can attain the fruit of the Great Vehicle — like milking a horn to get milk: no matter how one squeezes, none can be got.
- Not [its] instruction: the instruction that the Great Vehicle has, the Listener's Vehicle has not.
Therefore the Listener's Vehicle is not itself the Great Vehicle. 〔Question〕Now I will further show you where the two contradict.
Arousing the mind, and instruction, method and sustaining-power, the length of time — the lower and the higher vehicles: in all five matters they differ.
The Listener's Vehicle and the Great Vehicle have five contradictions:
- Difference in arousing the mind, 2. difference in instruction, 3. difference in method: the Listener's Vehicle's arousing of the mind, instruction, and diligent method are all only for gaining nirvāṇa for oneself; the Great Vehicle's are all for the benefit of others.
- Difference in sustaining-power: the Listener's Vehicle's sustaining-power (its power to uphold and gather) is small, because its store of merit and wisdom is small; the Great Vehicle's is great, because its store of merit and wisdom is great.
- Difference in length of time: the Listener's Vehicle needs but a short time — as little as three lifetimes to gain liberation; the Great Vehicle needs a long time, passing through three great incalculable eons (三大阿僧祇劫, an immeasurably long course of practice).
In all this they contradict; therefore one should not, by the practice of the Lesser Vehicle, seek the fruit of the Great Vehicle.
〔Question〕Again you say, "the Buddha's word has three marks: first, it enters the discourses (修多羅, the sūtra); second, it displays the discipline (毘尼, the vinaya); third, it does not contradict the emptiness of dharmas. But you take 'all dharmas are without self-nature' as your teaching, which contradicts these three marks — so it is not the Buddha's word." 〔Answer〕This is not so (the next verse answers).
It enters its own Great Vehicle scriptures; it displays its own extinction of the afflictions; its vast and profound meaning does not contradict its own emptiness of dharmas.
Now this Great Vehicle too does not contradict the three marks: it enters its own Great Vehicle discourses, and it displays its own remedy for the afflictions (the bodhisattva takes "discrimination" itself as the affliction to be cut off — this is its discipline); and its vast and profound meaning is precisely the "emptiness of dharmas" that the bodhisattva cultivates, and by not contradicting this emptiness he attains great awakening. Therefore the Great Vehicle does not contradict the three marks.
〔Question〕As for what was said earlier — "not [the doubter's] practice" — I will now make this point plainer, so as to bring you to belief.
Reliant and unsettled, taking the conventional as object and not universal, the one who shrinks back — such a conjecturing person: how could he understand the meaning of the Great Vehicle?
For five reasons the one who relies on conjecture cannot enter the domain of the Great Vehicle: his knowledge is reliant (it arises in reliance on teaching, and is not a knowledge born of realization); it is unsettled (at times yet another view arises in him); it takes the conventional as object (he gauges only the conventional truth, and does not reach the ultimate truth, 第一義諦); it is not universal (though he gauges the conventional truth, he gains only a partial understanding and does not understand the whole); and it is one that shrinks back (once cornered in debate, he falls silent). The knowledge of the Great Vehicle, by contrast, is without reliance and, in the end, never shrinks back — for in measureless scriptures there are hundreds of thousands of verses expounding the Dharma of the Great Vehicle, and having gained this Dharma one's eloquence is inexhaustible. Therefore the Great Vehicle is not the domain of the conjecturing person.
〔Question〕You say the Listener's Vehicle is not the method for the Buddha's awakening; if so, what then is?
The vast and the profound: maturing [beings] and the non-conceptual — declaring these two methods, this itself is the Supreme Vehicle.
The vast refers to the supernormal powers — by which, through extremely diligent method, one brings others to faith and understanding (this is for "maturing sentient beings"). The profound refers to non-conceptual knowledge — because it is hard to practice (this is for "maturing the Buddha-Dharma"). Declared in order: the first is for maturing sentient beings, the second for maturing the Buddha-Dharma. These two — the vast and the profound — are the method for supreme awakening, and are themselves the substance of the Supreme Vehicle.
〔Question〕If so, when someone gives rise to dread toward this, what is the fault?
Dreading where one should not dread, by that dread one is set aflame; because dread draws on demerit, over long time a train of harms arises.
If someone gives rise to dread, groundlessly, where there is nothing to dread (dreading this profound Dharma of the Great Vehicle), that person falls into the fiercely hot evil destinies and is set aflame. Why? Because this dread draws forth the arising of a vast store of demerit, and by this offense that person is made to undergo great burning distress for measureless eons.
〔Question〕By what cause, again, does that person give rise to this dread?
Not [of the] lineage, not [with] Dharma-friends, of little wisdom and little causal power — dreading this deep and wondrous Dharma, he falls away from great awakening.
If someone gives rise to dread, it is by four causes: first, not of the lineage (he lacks the bodhisattva's lineage, 種性, gotra); second, not [with] Dharma-friends (he is far from the good spiritual friend); third, little wisdom-power (he has not yet understood the emptiness of dharmas of the Great Vehicle); fourth, little causal power (in former lives he did not plant such roots-of-good in their own nature as the perfections, 波羅蜜, pāramitā). By these causes he perversely gives rise to a notion of dread toward the deep and wondrous Dharma; and by that notion, the twofold store of merit and wisdom of great awakening, which he ought to have gained, he does not gain — this is called "falling away." You should know that the harm of this "falling away" is most profound and grave.
Having stated the fault of dread and its cause, the text next states the reasons why one should not dread.
No difference means each has none; a difference means [it is] a steep height; no comparison, teaching of many kinds, continuous teaching, teaching through many gates. Its meaning is not as the letter has it — the Buddhas' profound substance: the wise one of right contemplation should know he need not dread.
The commentary sets out many reasons showing that the wise one of right contemplation need not dread the Great Vehicle:
- No difference means each has none: suppose you say, "the Listener's Vehicle is itself the Great Vehicle, with no substance apart from the Great Vehicle." If so, then the Listener's and the Solitary-Awakener's Vehicles in turn have no substance (because they too would be attaining Buddhahood). If it is so, then all are the Buddha-Vehicle — so what is there to dread?
- A difference means [it is] a steep height: if you grant that there is a substance of the Great Vehicle distinct [from the others], then this substance is the path of all-knowledge — the foremost, the steep and lofty height (because it is hard to cross). Toward this one should only look up in faith — why dread it?
- No comparison: within one and the same time there are not two Great Vehicles appearing together for comparison — so why dread this one and not dread that? (This shows the dread is groundless.)
- Teaching of many kinds: this Great Vehicle does not teach emptiness alone; it also teaches the vast store of merit and wisdom. One should grasp this intent — why dread emptiness alone?
- Continuous teaching: at all times [the Great Vehicle] decidedly and continuously teaches emptiness — you are not hearing it for the first time, so what is there to dread?
- Teaching through many gates: in scripture after scripture, through many gates and varied teachings (such as suchness, the nature-of-dharmas, the reality-limit), it reveals the great function of the Great Vehicle, breaks all discriminations, and gains non-conceptual knowledge. If these teachings had no great function, the Tathāgata would only say "emptiness" and would not teach suchness, the nature-of-dharmas, the reality-limit, and the rest. Since he does teach many gates, why dread emptiness alone?
- Its meaning is not as the letter has it: the Great Vehicle is deeply profound and not as the letter has it — why take the meaning by following the letter and dread emptiness?
- The Buddhas' profound substance: the Buddha-nature is deeply profound and hard to cognize all at once; one should seek to discern it — why dread it?
For all these reasons, the wise one of right contemplation need not dread the Great Vehicle.
Having stated the reasons for not dreading, the text next states the knowledge that can practice this Dharma.
Following in order — hearing, reflecting, cultivating — one gains the Dharma and gains wisdom; this knowledge practices this Dharma: what you have not yet gained, do not disparage.
If someone at the very first, relying on the good spiritual friend, can give rise to right hearing; then, toward the right meaning, can give rise to right recollection (right reflection); then, toward the domain of reality, gives rise to right knowledge; then, from this and that, gains realization of the Dharma-fruit; then, from that afterward, gives rise to the knowledge of liberation — this person's knowledge, following its ever-deeper and further penetration, is able to practice this Dharma. If you yourself lack such knowledge, you should not flatly say it is not the Buddha's word.
Having stated the knowledge that can practice this Dharma, the text next blocks the phrases of dread toward this Dharma.
"I do not understand it"; "what he understands is not deep"; "the deep is not gained by conjecture"; "understanding the deep gains liberation" — none of these dreads should be so.
Against the four causes of dread, the commentary blocks each in turn:
- "This deep Dharma is not something I can understand" — to dread on this account is not right.
- "What the Buddha understands is likewise not deep" — since it is a deep Dharma, why say it is [not] deep? To dread on this account is not right.
- "Why is this deep [meaning] not the domain of conjecture?" — to dread on this account is not right.
- "Why is it that the one who understands the deep meaning alone can gain liberation, and not the person of conjecture?" — to dread on this account is not right.
(None of these pretexts for dread will stand.) Having blocked the phrases of dread, the text next, by [your very] disbelief, establishes the Great Vehicle.
Through little faith, little element, little companionship, one does not understand the deep and great Dharma; and by your not understanding, my Supreme Vehicle is established.
Little faith (a narrow and inferior faith-and-understanding), little element (the seeds perfumed within the store consciousness, 阿梨耶識; 阿賴耶識, ālaya-vijñāna, are small), little companionship (those of similar faith and element are one's retinue) — if these three are all small, then one does not believe there is a Great Vehicle besides. Yet by this very disbelief of yours, the Supreme Dharma I have set forth is confirmed (the deep Dharma is, from the start, not what those of little faith and little element can believe; your disbelief precisely attests its loftiness and depth).
Having established the Great Vehicle, the text next blocks the slandering of the Great Vehicle.
By what you have heard you gain awakening; what you have not heard, take care not to slander; measureless [teaching] remains unheard — the slanderer wreaks the karma of folly.
Following the little you have heard, you gain some awakening; you should not, following what you have heard, turn about and give rise to slander. That you give no belief to what you have not heard — this may pass. Why? Because, not having accumulated roots-of-good, what you have not heard is much; so take care not to slander. If, without discernment, you give rise to slander, you only increase the karma of folly, and destroy even what you heard before.
Having blocked slander, the text next blocks wrong thinking.
Taking meaning as the letter has it, following one's own mind and falling from true wisdom, slandering the teaching, and making light of the Dharma — from these a great fault arises.
Following one's own mind (grasping one's own view and not seeking the meaning from the side of the wise); falling from true wisdom (falling away before one has gained the true understanding of things as they are); slandering the teaching (reviling what is well said); making light of the Dharma (envying what one has heard) — from these comes demerit, and in the next body one undergoes great and painful retribution: this is called the arising of a great fault.
Having blocked wrong thinking, the text next blocks ill will.
Ill will is evil by its own nature; being unwholesome, it should not be aroused, still less turned upon a wholesome object — one should cast off this great fault.
Ill will is a mind of hatred and envy. That it is "evil by its own nature" means this mind is an offense in its very nature — it should not be aroused even toward a faulty dharma, still less turned upon a faultless dharma (the Great Vehicle). Therefore one should urgently cast it off, for the sake of [avoiding] its great harm.
(Here the chapter on Establishing the Teaching ends.)
成宗品要答一個極尖銳的質疑：『這大乘，真是佛說的嗎？』 有人疑大乘非佛親說，本品便是本論『成立大乘是佛說』的一篇論。
先把本疏的分際說清楚：本疏只把本論『怎麼立、怎麼答』講明白——其中舉了哪些理由、如何回應對方的每一句反問。至於『大乘到底是不是佛說』這樁佛教史上的大公案，不是本疏所判；我們忠實傳述本論的論證，不替其中任一方下這個斷。讀者讀的，是『本論的成立論證』。
一、八因：本論成立『大乘是佛說』
不記亦同行，不行亦成就， 體、非體、能治、文異八因成。
本論開宗就擺出八條理由，逐一回應「大乘非佛說」之疑：
- 不記——往例：前佛之法將盡、後佛出世時，佛都會『預記』未來的變異。若大乘是冒充正法的假貨，世尊起初為何不預記、不示警？沒有這樣的預記，反顯它是正法。
- 同行——聲聞乘與大乘自來同時並行於世，不分先後；憑什麼單挑大乘說它非佛說？
- 不行——大乘深廣，不是臆測的人信得來、行得出的；連外道的種種論裡也找不出這樣的法種。外道行不出，正見其非凡品。
- 成就 / 5. 體 / 6. 非體——這三條是『以退為進』：你若改口說『是別的佛、別處有大乘』，反而成全了『佛說大乘』；你若說『這佛無大乘體、聲聞乘才是佛說』，又落進『哪有不說佛乘、卻有佛出世只說聲聞乘』的大漏洞。
- 能治——依大乘修行，實能生無分別智、實能破煩惱；有這實效，怎能說沒有大乘？
- 文異——大乘甚深，意不在字面；不該一味照字面取義，就判它非佛語。
接著對方退一步說：『佛起初不預記，許是佛以無功用心、自然「捨」而不記罷了。』本論答：
諸佛三因緣，現見亦護法， 如來智無礙，捨者不應爾。
諸佛有三件事恆時不缺——無功用的智恆起、法眼恆見；恆作正勤、守護正法；智力毫無障礙。既是這樣眼明、護法、智無礙的佛，怎會「捨」著一個冒充正法的大乘而不示警？「捨而不記」這話，講不通。
二、聲聞乘不就是大乘：四因與五異
非全非不違，非行非教授， 是故聲聞乘，非即是大乘。
對方又說：『那聲聞乘就是大乘之體吧（依聲聞乘也能成佛）。』本論舉四因否掉：聲聞乘沒有利他的教授（非全）、不能算利他（非不違——它縱然順帶安他，自身仍只求己之涅槃）、不是大菩提的方便（非行）、沒有大乘那套教授（非教授）。其中「非行」一句，本論用了一個傳神的比方：
譬如搆角求乳，不可得故。
想從牛角裡擠出奶來——再用力、再久，也擠不出，因為那根本不是出奶的地方。以聲聞乘之行去求大乘之果，正是這樣：方向錯了，久行也無益。這個比方，古德也接了過去：太賢《成唯識論學記》釋「非行」因，便撮引本品此喻（文作「如搆牛角不出乳」）——足見此喻在古德手中已成講此義的定式。
再進一步，本論列五種相違，把兩乘的分野標清楚：
發心與教授，方便及住持， 時節下上乘，五事一切異。
發心、教授、勤方便——聲聞乘都為「自得涅槃」，大乘都為「利他」；住持（攝持之力）——聲聞少（福智聚小）、大乘多（福智聚大）；時節——聲聞短（乃至三生得脫）、大乘長（經三大阿僧祇劫）。五事既然事事相違，就不該拿小乘之行去討大乘之果。本論此處無意貶低聲聞，只在辨『兩條路、兩個果，不可混同』。
三、大乘不違『佛語三相』
對方換一個角度攻：『佛語有三條驗準——入契經、合戒律、不違法空；你大乘講一切法無自性，違了這三相，所以非佛語。』本論答：
入自大乘經，現自煩惱滅， 廣大甚深義，不違自法空。
大乘恰恰不違這三相，只是要在大乘自宗裡看：它入於自宗的大乘契經、現顯自宗的煩惱對治（菩薩把「分別」當煩惱來斷，這就是大乘的「毘尼」）；而它那廣大甚深之義，本身就是菩薩所修的「法空」——不違這法空，正得大菩提。三相非但不違，反而圓備。
四、臆度入不了；廣大、甚深二方便即是無上乘
有依及不定，緣俗亦不普， 退屈忖度人，寧解大乘義？
本論說：光憑『臆度』（猜測推論）的人，進不了大乘的境界，因為他的智有五種短處——有依（依著聽來的教而起，不是親證）、不定（一時又冒出別的見解）、緣俗（只測度世俗的道理，到不了第一義）、不普（就算測世俗也只得一星半點）、退屈（一辯到理屈就默然）。〔疏借喻〕《雜阿含經》有一偈正好寫這分量上的不相稱：「如大海之水，牛跡所不容，如是佛智海，餘人不能持。」牛蹄踩出的一窪小水坑，盛不下一片大海——這不是海不深，是那窪坑太小。臆度者測不到大乘，正是這個理：盛不下、測不到，不等於它不在。
〔問〕那麼，什麼才是成佛的真方便？
廣大及甚深，成熟無分別， 說此二方便，即是無上乘。
本論答：兩樣——廣大（種種神通，以極勤的方便令眾生信解，這是「成熟眾生」）與甚深（無分別智，難行難證，這是「成熟佛法」）。這『廣大、甚深』二方便，就是無上菩提的方便，也就是無上乘的體。
五、不應怖畏：莫在深處掉頭
接著本論轉到一個很實在的關懷：面對這樣甚深的法，有人會害怕——而本論鄭重提醒：在『不該怕』的地方亂怕，是有過患的（妄怖深法、進而謗毀，會招感惡道熱惱）。
不應怖而怖，由怖被燒然…… 非性非法朋，少慧少因力， 怖此深妙法，退失大菩提。
本論指出這怖畏的根，多在四處：沒有種性、遠離善知識、智慧未及（還沒解得法空）、善根未厚。要緊的是看清本論這番話的對象——此處所誡的是『妄生怖畏、進而謗毀』，不是老實的『我還不懂』。
接著本論一口氣舉出八條『其實不必怕』的理由，把怕的種種藉口逐一拆掉：
無異即互無，有異即險處， 無譬種種說，續說多門說。 非有如文義，諸佛甚深體， 聰慧正觀人，應知不應怖。
- 無異則互無——你若說『大乘就是聲聞乘、並無另一個大乘體』，那照同一個理，聲聞乘、辟支佛乘也都沒有自體了（因為它們最終都歸於佛乘）。既然如此，何必獨怕大乘？
- 有異則仰信險處——你若承認大乘另有自體，那這體就是『一切智之道』，是最第一的險處（極深、極難度越）。對這樣的高處，該做的是仰信，不是害怕。
- 無譬（無可相比）——同一個時候，並沒有『兩個大乘』一起出世可以擺著比較；那你憑什麼怕這一個、卻不怕那一個？怕得毫無道理。
- 種種說——大乘並不是只講一個「空」，它也講廣大的福智聚。該領會這整層意思，何必單單揪著「空」來怕？
- 續說——這「空」是一切時中相續宣說的常法，你不是乍然才聽到一回；既是貫徹始終的正說，何必怕？
- 多門說——諸經用「如、法性、實際」等種種門來說，正是為破除種種分別、引生無分別智。倘若不這樣多門地說、只乾說一個「空」，反而沒有大用了；既然多門皆為大用，何必獨怕「空」這一門？
- 非有如文義——大乘甚深，本就不在字面；你何苦照著字面去取義、再對著自己取錯的字面義發怕？
- 諸佛甚深體——佛性幽深，倉促間難以覺知，正該虛心求個了別；越是難測，越該求解，而不是掉頭就怕。
八條說下來，歸結成一句：真正聰慧而能正觀的人，面對大乘，不該怖畏。
最後，本論再溫和地把幾種『怕』的藉口一一化掉：
不解解不深，深非思度解， 解深得解脫，諸怖不應爾。
『這法我不懂』『就算佛懂的，也未必真深』『為什麼它偏偏不是思量所能及』『為什麼唯有解得深義的人才得解脫』——這四種嘀咕，沒有一條構成『怕它、謗它』的理由。換句話說：不懂，是暫時不懂，老老實實擱著、虛心求解就好，何必怕、何必謗？對深法，本論教人取的姿態始終是仰信——像對一座難攀的高峰，不必怕它，敬它、仰望它、一步步去攀它，就是了。
六、莫謗未聞、莫師心自用
最後幾頌，落到學人最該守的本分。
隨次聞思修，得法及得慧， 此智行此法，未得勿非毀。
能行這法的智，是依善知識、循『正聞→正思→正智→證法→解脫智』一層層深入養出來的。本論由此立一條極公道的規矩：你自己若還沒走到那一步、沒得那樣的智，就不該武斷地宣判它『不是佛語』。
由小信界伴，不解深大法， 由汝不解故，成我無上乘。
再用一次那『牛跡盛不下大海』的理：信小、根器小（心識裡熏的種子小）、所伴的人也小，自然不信另有大乘——可是『你裝不下』恰恰反證了『它的深』。牛蹄水坑盛不出大海，海的深卻因此更顯。
收尾三誡，句句是給真誠求法者的體己話。
一誡謗毀——
隨聞而得覺，未聞慎勿毀， 無量餘未聞，謗者成癡業。
你憑著少分聽聞，已經有所覺悟；可不該一聽到沒聽過的，就生謗毀。沒聽過的還那麼多（善根未積，未聞者本就多），一旦不加簡別地謗，反增癡業，連先前那分覺悟也一併壞了。
二誡邪思——
如文取義時，師心退真慧， 謗說及輕法，緣此大過生。
「師心」，是只認自己的見、不肯向有智者求義；這樣照著字面取義，真實之解便退失了。由此而謗說（毀謗善說）、輕法（嫉妒所聞），招來的是來世身受大苦的大過患。
三誡惡意——
惡意自性惡，不善不應起， 況移於善處，應捨大過故。
「惡意」就是憎嫉之心，它『自性即惡』（本身就是罪）——在有過失的法上尚且不該起，何況把它加到無過的大乘上？這樣的大過患，該急急捨掉。
一言以蔽之：在『深而未聞』的法面前，最穩當的姿態是闕疑求解，不是輕率謗毀。
結：一篇「成立」之論
通看全品，成宗品是本論一篇條理綿密的「成立」之論——八因正立、四因五異辨兩乘、會通佛語三相、斥臆度、立廣大甚深二方便為無上乘體，再層層遮去怖畏、謗毀、邪思、惡意。 它既是護法的雄辯，也給一切學人立了一條治學的分寸：對甚深而未及之法，寧仰信闕疑，莫師心輕謗。
末了再申本疏的分際：以上逐條，是把本論的論證講清楚——其中立得何等周密、答得何等有條理；至於『大乘是否佛說』這樁公案的最終是非，本疏不判，留與讀者與教史自參。
The Chapter on Establishing the Teaching answers one very sharp challenge: "This great vehicle — is it truly what the Buddha spoke?" Some doubt that the great vehicle was preached by the Buddha in person, and this chapter is the treatise's argument "establishing that the great vehicle is Buddha-word."
Let the bounds of this exposition be made plain first: this exposition only makes clear how the treatise establishes and answers — which reasons it raises, and how it replies to each of the opponent's rejoinders. As for whether the great vehicle really is Buddha-word — that great case in the history of Buddhism — it is not this exposition's to adjudicate; we faithfully transmit the treatise's argument and pass judgment for neither side. What the reader reads is "the treatise's argument for establishing it."
I. The eight reasons: the treatise establishes that "the great vehicle is Buddha-word"
Not foretold, and running alongside; not something [others] practice, and yet a thing accomplished; substance, non-substance, capacity to cure, and difference of letter — by these eight reasons it is established.
The treatise opens by setting out eight reasons, answering the doubt that "the great vehicle is not Buddha-word" one by one:
- Not foretold — the precedent: when a former Buddha's Dharma is about to be exhausted and a later Buddha appears in the world, the Buddha always "foretells" the coming alterations. If the great vehicle were a counterfeit passing itself off as the true Dharma, why did the World-Honored One not foretell it at the outset, not sound a warning? There being no such foretelling, this on the contrary shows it to be the true Dharma.
- Running alongside — the śrāvaka vehicle (聲聞乘, the vehicle of the listeners) and the great vehicle have from of old run alongside each other in the world at one and the same time, neither before nor after the other; on what grounds does one single out the great vehicle alone and call it not Buddha-word?
- Not something [others] practice — the great vehicle is deep and vast, not something the person who merely conjectures can believe or carry out; and in all the treatises the outsiders have devised, no such seed of Dharma is anywhere to be found. That the outsiders cannot practice it is exactly what shows it to be no ordinary thing.
- A thing accomplished / 5. Substance / 6. Non-substance — these three are "advancing by giving ground": if you change your tune and say "it was some other Buddha, in some other place, who had a great vehicle," you have on the contrary confirmed that "a Buddha spoke the great vehicle"; and if you say "this Buddha had no substance of the great vehicle, only the śrāvaka vehicle is Buddha-word," you fall into the gaping hole of "how could a Buddha appear who does not speak the Buddha-vehicle and yet preaches only the śrāvaka vehicle."
- Capacity to cure — practicing according to the great vehicle really can give rise to non-conceptual knowledge (無分別智, the knowledge free of subject-object discrimination) and really can break the afflictions; with such actual effect, how can one say there is no great vehicle?
- Difference of letter — the great vehicle is very deep, and its intent does not lie on the surface of the letter; one should not take the meaning by the letter throughout and thereupon judge it to be not Buddha-word.
Then the opponent gives ground a step and says: "Perhaps the Buddha's not foretelling it at the outset was simply the Buddha, with a mind of no-exertion, naturally 'letting it go' and not foretelling." The treatise answers:
The Buddhas have three grounds — present seeing, and guarding the Dharma; the Tathāgata's knowledge is unobstructed — that he should "let it go" cannot be.
The Buddhas are never without three things at any time: the knowledge of no-exertion arises unceasingly, and the eye [of Dharma] sees unceasingly; they unceasingly make right effort, and guard the true Dharma; and the power of their knowledge has not the least obstruction. Being a Buddha thus clear of eye, guarding the Dharma, and unobstructed in knowledge, how could he "let go" a counterfeit passing for the true Dharma and give no warning? This talk of "letting it go and not foretelling" does not hold together.
II. The śrāvaka vehicle is not simply the great vehicle: four reasons and five differences
Not complete, and not "not contrary"; not the practice, and not the instruction — therefore the śrāvaka vehicle is not simply the great vehicle.
The opponent says again: "Then let the śrāvaka vehicle be the very substance of the great vehicle (by the śrāvaka vehicle one can also become a Buddha)." The treatise raises four reasons to strike this down: the śrāvaka vehicle has no instruction for benefiting others (not complete); cannot count as benefiting others (not "not contrary" — even where it incidentally settles others, it still seeks only its own nirvāṇa); is not the means to the great awakening (not the practice); and has none of the great vehicle's kind of instruction (not the instruction). On that phrase "not the practice," the treatise uses a vivid comparison:
It is like milking a horn to get milk — it cannot be got.
To try to squeeze milk out of a horn — however hard, however long you press, none will come, because that is simply not the place milk comes from. To seek the fruit of the great vehicle by the practice of the śrāvaka vehicle is exactly so: the direction is wrong, and long practice brings no gain. This comparison the old masters took up too: Taehyŏn, in his Notes on the Study of the Cheng Weishi Lun, in explaining the reason "not the practice," abridges and cites this very simile of the chapter (his text reading "like milking an ox-horn, no milk comes out") — proof enough that in the old masters' hands this simile had already become a fixed figure for teaching this point.
Going a step further, the treatise lists five kinds of mutual contrariety, to mark off clearly the divide between the two vehicles:
The arousing of the mind and the instruction, the means and the sustaining power, the span of time — lower and upper vehicles: in these five things they differ altogether.
The arousing of the mind, the instruction, the diligent means — in the śrāvaka vehicle all are for "attaining one's own nirvāṇa," in the great vehicle all are for "benefiting others"; the sustaining power (the strength of upholding) — the śrāvaka's is little (its store of merit and wisdom is small), the great vehicle's is much (its store of merit and wisdom is great); the span of time — the śrāvaka's is short (liberation in as few as three lifetimes), the great vehicle's is long (passing through three great incalculable aeons). Since these five things are contrary in every one, one should not take a lesser-vehicle practice to seek a great-vehicle fruit. Here the passage does not disparage the śrāvakas; it only distinguishes "two roads, two fruits, not to be confounded."
III. The great vehicle is not contrary to the "three marks of Buddha-word"
The opponent attacks from another angle: "Buddha-word has three tests — that it enter the discourses, accord with the discipline, and not run contrary to the emptiness of dharmas; your great vehicle teaches that 'all dharmas are without self-nature,' which violates these three marks, and so is not Buddha-word." The treatise answers:
It enters its own great-vehicle scriptures; it manifests its own extinguishing of the afflictions; its vast and very deep meaning is not contrary to its own emptiness of dharmas.
The great vehicle precisely does not run contrary to these three marks — only, they must be seen within the great vehicle's own tradition: it enters the discourses of its own tradition, the great-vehicle scriptures; it manifests the afflictions'-cure of its own tradition (the bodhisattva takes "discrimination" itself as the affliction to be cut off — this is the great vehicle's "discipline"); and that vast and very deep meaning of its own is itself the "emptiness of dharmas" the bodhisattva cultivates — not being contrary to this emptiness of dharmas, it precisely attains the great awakening. Far from being contrary to the three marks, it fulfills them completely.
IV. Conjecture cannot enter; the vast and the very deep — these two skillful means are the unsurpassed vehicle
Dependent [on hearsay] and unsettled, apprehending only the conventional and not even universally, shrinking back — how should the man of conjecture understand the great vehicle's meaning?
The treatise says: the man who relies only on "conjecture" (guessing and inference) cannot enter the domain of the great vehicle, because his knowledge has five shortcomings — dependent (it arises depending on a teaching heard, not on direct realization), unsettled (at one moment another view will pop up instead), apprehending only the conventional (it can only gauge worldly principles, and does not reach the ultimate truth), not universal (even in gauging the conventional it gets but a fragment), and shrinking back (as soon as debate presses him to the wall he falls silent). 〔exposition-borrowed simile〕The Saṃyukta Āgama has a verse that catches this disproportion of measure exactly: "As the water of the great ocean is not held by an ox's hoofprint, so the ocean of the Buddha's knowledge cannot be upheld by other men." A little puddle stamped out by an ox's hoof cannot hold a whole ocean — this is not that the ocean is not deep, it is that the puddle is too small. That the man of conjecture cannot gauge the great vehicle is exactly this principle: that it will not fit, that it cannot be gauged, is not the same as its not being there.
〔Question〕Then what is the true means to becoming a Buddha?
The vast and the very deep: maturing [beings], and the non-conceptual — these two, called the two skillful means, are just the unsurpassed vehicle.
The treatise answers: two things — the vast (the manifold supernormal powers, by which, with the utmost diligent means, one brings beings to belief and understanding — this is "maturing beings") and the very deep (non-conceptual knowledge, hard to practice and hard to realize — this is "maturing the Buddha-Dharma"). These two skillful means, "the vast and the very deep," are the means to the unsurpassed awakening, and are the very substance of the unsurpassed vehicle.
V. One should not take fright: do not turn back at the depths
The treatise then turns to a very practical concern: facing so deep a Dharma, some will be afraid — and it earnestly warns that to be wrongly afraid where one ought not to fear carries a fault (idle fright at the deep Dharma, and slandering it thereafter, brings on the searing torment of the evil destinies).
One should not fear, yet fears; through fear one is set aflame … Without the lineage, without the Dharma-fellowship, of little wisdom and little cause: fearing this deep and wondrous Dharma, one falls away from the great awakening.
The treatise points out that the root of this fright lies mostly in four places: having no lineage, being far from the good friend, wisdom not yet reaching (not yet understanding the emptiness of dharmas), and roots of good not yet thick. The essential thing is to see clearly the object of the treatise's words here — what the passage admonishes is "idly giving rise to fright, and slandering thereafter," not the honest "I do not yet understand."
The treatise then lays out in one breath eight reasons why "there is in fact nothing to fear," dismantling the pretexts for fear one by one:
If not different, then mutually without; if different, then a place of peril; beyond compare, taught in manifold ways; taught continuously, taught by many gates. Not to be taken by the letter — the Buddhas' very deep substance: the wise who observe rightly should know there is nothing to fear.
- If not different, then mutually without — if you say "the great vehicle just is the śrāvaka vehicle, there being no separate substance of the great vehicle," then by the very same principle the śrāvaka vehicle and the pratyekabuddha vehicle would have no substance of their own either (since in the end they all revert to the Buddha-vehicle). That being so, why fear the great vehicle alone?
- If different, then a place of peril [that calls for trusting faith] — if you grant that the great vehicle has a separate substance of its own, then that substance is "the path of all-knowledge," the foremost, the most exalted place of peril (extremely deep, extremely hard to cross over). Toward such a height, what one should do is look up in trusting faith, not be afraid.
- Beyond compare (nothing to set beside it) — at any one time there are not "two great vehicles" appearing together to be set side by side and compared; on what ground, then, would you fear this one and not fear that? The fear is wholly without reason.
- Taught in manifold ways — the great vehicle does not teach only a single "emptiness"; it also teaches the vast store of merit and wisdom. One should grasp this whole layer of meaning — why single out "emptiness" alone to fear?
- Taught continuously — this "emptiness" is the constant teaching, expounded continuously at all times; you are not hearing it for the first time all of a sudden. It being a right teaching carried through from beginning to end, why fear it?
- Taught by many gates — the scriptures use many gates — "suchness, the nature of dharmas, the reality-limit," and the like — to teach it, precisely to break the manifold discriminations and give rise to non-conceptual knowledge. If it were not taught by these many gates but only baldly as one "emptiness," it would on the contrary have no great use; since the many gates are all for great use, why fear "emptiness" alone, this one gate?
- Not to be taken by the letter — the great vehicle is very deep and does not lie on the surface of the letter; why go and take the meaning by the letter, and then fear at the very letter-meaning you have taken wrongly?
- The Buddhas' very deep substance — the Buddha-nature is deep and hidden, hard to be aware of on short acquaintance; this is just the case for seeking an understanding of it with an open mind — the harder to gauge, the more one should seek to understand, not turn back and be afraid.
The eight reasons told through, they gather into one line: the truly wise, who can observe rightly, facing the great vehicle, should not take fright.
Last, the treatise once more gently dissolves several pretexts for "fear," one by one:
"Not understanding; the understanding is not deep; the deep is not for thought to reach; understanding the deep gains liberation" — none of these frights should be.
"This Dharma I do not understand," "even what the Buddha understands may not be truly deep," "why is it that this is precisely not the domain of deliberation," "why is it that only the one who understands the deep meaning gains liberation" — not one of these four mutterings amounts to a reason to "fear it, slander it." In other words: not understanding is a temporary not-understanding; simply set it aside in all honesty and seek to understand with an open mind — why fear, why slander? Toward the deep Dharma, the posture the treatise teaches one to take is always trusting faith — as toward a hard peak to climb, one need not fear it; to revere it, to look up to it, and to climb it step by step is just the thing.
VI. Do not slander what you have not heard; do not follow your own mind
The last several verses come down to the very duty a student should keep.
By stages, hearing, thinking, cultivating, one gains the Dharma and gains wisdom; this wisdom practices this Dharma — while not yet gained, do not disparage.
The wisdom that can practice this Dharma is nurtured layer upon layer, by relying on the good friend and following "right hearing → right thinking → right knowledge → realizing the Dharma → the wisdom of liberation." From this the treatise sets up one thoroughly fair rule: if you yourself have not yet walked to that step, have not yet gained such wisdom, you ought not arbitrarily to pronounce that it "is not Buddha-word."
Through small faith, small element, and [small] companions, one does not understand the deep and great Dharma; and it is by your not understanding that my unsurpassed vehicle is established.
The treatise uses once more that principle of "the ox-hoofprint cannot hold the ocean": small in faith, small in capacity (small the seed perfumed within the consciousness), and small too the companions one keeps — naturally one does not believe there is any separate great vehicle. Yet "that you cannot hold it" is exactly the proof of "its depth." The ox-hoof puddle cannot hold an ocean, and by this the ocean's depth is shown the more.
The treatise closes with three admonitions, each of them heartfelt counsel to one who truly seeks the Dharma.
First, an admonition against slander —
By what one hears one gains awakening; what one has not heard, take care not to disparage. The measureless remainder is unheard — the slanderer works a deed of delusion.
By your small share of hearing you have already come to some awakening; you should not, the moment you hear something unheard-before, give rise to slander. What is unheard-before is still so much (roots of good not yet amassed, the unheard is naturally the greater part); once you slander without discrimination, you but increase the deed of delusion, and destroy along with it the awakening you had before.
Second, an admonition against wrong thought —
When one takes the meaning by the letter, following one's own mind, one falls away from true wisdom; slandering discourse and slighting the Dharma — from this the great fault arises.
"Following one's own mind" is holding to one's own view alone and refusing to seek the meaning from those who have wisdom; taking the meaning by the letter in this way, the true understanding falls away. From this come slandering discourse (disparaging good teaching) and slighting the Dharma (envying what one has heard), and what these draw on is the great fault of undergoing great suffering in a body to come.
Third, an admonition against malice —
Malice is by its own nature evil; being unwholesome, it should not be aroused — how much less shifted onto a wholesome thing? It should be cast off, for the great fault's sake.
"Malice" is a mind of hatred and envy; it "is by its own nature evil" (it is itself a sin) — it should not be aroused even toward a Dharma that has faults, how much less shifted onto the faultless great vehicle? Such a great fault should be cast off with all haste.
In a phrase: before a Dharma that is deep and not yet heard, the surest posture is to hold one's doubt and seek understanding, not to slander rashly.
Conclusion: a treatise of "establishing"
Taking the whole chapter together, the Chapter on Establishing the Teaching is the treatise's closely-reasoned treatise of "establishing" — the eight reasons establish it directly; four reasons and five differences distinguish the two vehicles; it reconciles the three marks of Buddha-word; it rebukes conjecture; it sets up the two skillful means, the vast and the very deep, as the substance of the unsurpassed vehicle; and then, layer by layer, it blocks off fright, slander, wrong thought, and malice. It is at once a vigorous defense of the Dharma and a setting-out, for every student, of a measure for study: before a Dharma deep and not yet reached, better to look up in trusting faith and hold one's doubt than to follow one's own mind and slander lightly.
At the last, let the bounds of this exposition be stated once more: all the foregoing, point by point, is to make clear the treatise's argument — how tightly it establishes, how methodically it answers; as for the final right-and-wrong of that case, "is the great vehicle Buddha-word," this exposition does not adjudicate, but leaves it for the reader and the history of the teaching to work out.
考據Apparatus
本品為護教論證；其結論之是非，本層誌而不判。
一 科判定位
成宗品居脊樑第二，是成立「大乘是佛說」的護教論，破「大乘非佛說」之疑網。品內次第：八因成立（不記·同行·不行·成就·體·非體·能治·文異）→ 遮三難（佛「捨」而不記·聲聞乘即大乘體·大乘違佛語三相）→ 五異（聲聞／大乘 發心·教授·方便·住持·時節）→ 五因明忖度者不入 → 二方便即無上乘（廣大·甚深）→ 遮怖畏（過·因·不應怖八義）→ 遮謗毀·邪思·惡意。
二 譯名對校（本論無別譯·與玄奘系同義對列）
| 本品（波羅頗譯） | 玄奘系同義 | 說 |
|---|---|---|
| 大乘／最上乘／無上乘 | 大乘 | 同指 |
| 聲聞乘 | 聲聞乘 | 論諍之對方 |
| 修多羅／毘尼／法空 | 契經／律／法無自性 | 佛語三相 |
| 阿僧祇劫 | 阿僧企耶劫 | 極長時程 |
| 無分別智 | 無分別智 | 甚深方便 |
| 阿梨耶識 | 阿賴耶識 | 本品作「阿梨耶」 |
三 義之所立（眼）
本品立「大乘真是佛說」：以八因正成立；辨聲聞乘非即大乘（四因·五異）；明大乘不違佛語三相（入大乘修多羅·現煩惱毘尼·不違法空）；斥忖度者不能入；立廣大（神通·成熟眾生）·甚深（無分別智·成熟佛法）二方便為無上乘體；終遮怖畏、謗毀、邪思、惡意。
四 徵引分際：護教論證·並錄不判（本品樞要所在）
本品為護教論——釋文力證『大乘是佛說』。本層只傳述本論所立，不代論主裁斷：
- 如實傳述釋文之立論（述而不作）：八因·五異·二方便等，逐一忠實呈現為本論之論證。
- 不代論主裁斷『大乘是否佛說』：釋文舉理力證一面；本層誌其為『本論之論證』，於其結論之是非不評判。
- 故读者層宜以『本論立／釋文答』之語傳之，使讀者知其為論中所立，而非本譯之斷。
〔交叉：此與攝論護教徵引同律——傳述為本論之論證，於大乘是否佛說不作偏判。〕
古德徵引（本品八因＝成唯識論系護教所本·逐因承用）
本品『八因成立大乘是佛說』，即成唯識論引以證「大乘真是佛說」之所本。 成唯識論（卷三）引本品八因為據，窺基《述記》、太賢《學記》逐因疏釋。下錄皆古德如何引用本品之誌錄——於『大乘是否佛說』之公案仍不代裁（古德舉之以立證，本層傳述其立證，不偏判）。
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》T43n1830：
- 0351c19「第二、引《莊嚴論》成立是佛語」——標成唯識論引本品為護教之據。
- 0354a07「彼論第一卷第二品說，先略為八因，後廣為細各各分別」——繫本品為《莊嚴論》卷一第二品（即成宗品），八因先略後廣。
- 0352b17「今《莊嚴論》說有八因，依勘梵本但有七種；此中第五『有、無有』因，彼別離之，故為八種」——八因／七因之勘梵本開合（第五「體／非體」本合為一）。
- 逐因疏解：一不記（0352b24「一、不記故，無『先』字也，《顯揚》同此」）·二同行（0352c24「同行者，同一時行也」）·三不行（0353a08「不行故，謂聲聞智不能行故」）·五體六非體（0353b05「第五體，第六非體，二合為一」）·七能治（0353c16「能持勤修行時，得無分別智，對治一切煩惱」）。
- 〔撰者〕0352b12「《莊嚴論》頌文彌勤所說，長行釋者世親所為。舊人不知，總謂天親作，謬也」——窺基判頌為彌勒（CBETA 原貌作「彌勤」，下文自注「梵言梅呾利耶，此翻言慈氏」，即彌勒）所說、長行釋為世親所作，並斥「天親作」之說；此為窺基之判，與其他古說並錄。
- 太賢《成唯識論學記》X50n0818：0066b19「如莊嚴論：佛不記故，知是佛說」·0067a05「莊嚴論釋亦開為二，謂體、非體」·0067a16–a17「有言久行聲聞乘得大菩提者，不然，方便故，如搆牛角不出乳故」（撮引本品「非行」因——本論作「譬如搆角求乳，不可得故」，學記作「搆牛角不出乳」，文小異義同）·0067b04 牒成唯識論本文『如莊嚴論〔至〕異文故』（引本品八因作結）。
系內：攝大乘論亦有『成立大乘是佛說』之同類論（增上慧／所知依攝），與本品互發；瑜伽·成唯識論承用八因之旨。
五 名相（首見·義）
- 大乘是佛說：本品所成立之宗——大乘為佛親說之正法。
- 聲聞乘：求自利、厭離求涅槃之乘；本品論諍之對方。
- 佛語三相：入修多羅（契經）·顯示毘尼（律）·不違法空——驗『是否佛語』之三準。
- 無分別智：離能所分別、親證真如之根本智，本品判為「甚深」方便。
- 法空：一切法無自性；菩薩所修，本品判為不違三相。
- 阿僧祇劫：不可數之極長時劫。阿梨耶識：即阿賴耶識，含藏種子之根本識。
- 忖度：以世俗臆度推測（非親證），本品斥其不入大乘。
六 譬喻
搆角求乳——擠牛角而求奶，徒勞不可得；喻『久行聲聞乘行而求大菩提果』之非方便、終不可得。（潔淨·無傷之喻。）
義疏借喻坐實（非本論自有）
義疏為助開解所引之他經譬喻／經證，本論無此文；坐實出處如下，與本論自有諸喻區別，並錄以對等底料。
- 〔牛跡海水喻〕：《雜阿含經》T02n0099 卷23 0168b20–b21 —「如大海之水，牛跡所不容，如是佛智海，餘人不能持。」義疏用於〔§四 釋「退屈忖度人，寧解大乘義」·喻臆度者智量狹小，盛測不到大乘甚深〕；§六 釋「由汝不解故，成我無上乘」處重引此牛跡／大海之象（『你裝不下』反證「它的深」）。
七 互讀
- 攝大乘論：『成立大乘是佛說』同類論，與本品互發（護教徵引同律）。
- 瑜伽·成唯識論：八因之旨、二乘相違、無分別智。
八 校本定位
本品 T31n1604 0591a02–0593a02（成宗品究竟）。
This chapter is an apologetic argument; whether its conclusion is right or wrong, the present layer records and does not adjudicate.
I. Doctrinal-structural placement (科判定位)
The Chapter on Establishing the Teaching stands second along the spine; it is the apologetic treatise establishing that "the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word," breaking the net of doubt that "the Mahāyāna is not the Buddha's word." The sequence within the chapter: establishment by the eight reasons (not-predicted · concurrent-arising · not-practicable · attainment · substance · non-substance · being-a-remedy · differing-in-letter) → the removal of three difficulties (the Buddha "set aside" and did not predict it · the śrāvaka vehicle would then be identical with the substance of the Mahāyāna · the Mahāyāna contravenes the three marks of the Buddha's word) → the five differences (śrāvaka / Mahāyāna in arousing the mind · instruction · skillful means · sustaining · the span of time) → the five reasons that the one who merely surmises cannot enter → the two skillful means are themselves the unsurpassed vehicle (the vast · the profound) → the removal of fear (by the eight meanings of "one should not fear," concerning fault and cause) → the removal of slander, wrong thinking, and malice.
II. Cross-translation collation (譯名對校 · this treatise has no separate rendering; set out alongside the synonymous Xuanzang-lineage terms)
| This chapter (Prabhākaramitra's rendering) | Xuanzang-lineage synonym | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 大乘／最上乘／無上乘 [the great vehicle / the highest vehicle / the unsurpassed vehicle] | 大乘 [the great vehicle] | one and the same referent |
| 聲聞乘 [the śrāvaka vehicle] | 聲聞乘 [the śrāvaka vehicle] | the opponent in the dispute |
| 修多羅／毘尼／法空 [the sūtra / the vinaya / the emptiness of dharmas] | 契經／律／法無自性 [the discourses / the discipline / the naturelessness of dharmas] | the three marks of the Buddha's word |
| 阿僧祇劫 [an incalculable aeon] | 阿僧企耶劫 [an incalculable aeon] | an utterly long span of time |
| 無分別智 [non-conceptual knowledge] | 無分別智 [non-conceptual knowledge] | the profound skillful means |
| 阿梨耶識 [the store consciousness] | 阿賴耶識 [the store consciousness] | this chapter writes 「阿梨耶」 |
III. What the chapter establishes (義之所立 · the eye)
This chapter establishes that "the Mahāyāna truly is the Buddha's word": it establishes this directly by the eight reasons; it discerns that the śrāvaka vehicle is not identical with the Mahāyāna (by four reasons · the five differences); it clarifies that the Mahāyāna does not contravene the three marks of the Buddha's word (it enters the Mahāyāna sūtras · it makes present the vinaya against the afflictions · it does not contravene the emptiness of dharmas); it rebuts the one who merely surmises as unable to enter; it establishes the vast (supernormal powers · maturing sentient beings) and the profound (non-conceptual knowledge · maturing the Buddha-dharmas), these two skillful means, as the substance of the unsurpassed vehicle; and it finally removes fear, slander, wrong thinking, and malice.
IV. Grounds of citation: an apologetic argument · set down together and not adjudicated (徵引分際 · the pivot of this chapter)
This chapter is an apologetic argument: its prose commentary forcefully argues that "the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word." This layer transmits what the treatise establishes without adjudicating on the treatise-author's behalf:
- Faithful transmission of the prose commentary's argument (transmitting, not composing): the eight reasons · the five differences · the two skillful means are each rendered as the treatise's argument.
- No adjudication on the treatise-author's behalf: the prose commentary marshals reasons to prove one side; this layer records it as "the treatise's argument" and passes no judgment on the conclusion.
- Hence the reader-facing layers should use "the treatise establishes / the prose commentary answers," marking the position as internal to the treatise rather than this translation's verdict.
〔Cross-reference: this follows the same rule as the apologetic citation of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha — transmitted as the treatise's argument, without a partial verdict on whether the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word.〕
The ancient masters' citations (this chapter's eight reasons = the ground of the Cheng-Weishi-Lun-lineage apologetics · inherited reason by reason)
This chapter's "eight reasons establishing that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word" are precisely the ground on which the Cheng Weishi Lun cites to prove that "the Mahāyāna truly is the Buddha's word." The Cheng Weishi Lun (scroll three) cites this chapter's eight reasons as its warrant, and Kuiji's Notes and Taehyŏn's Study-Notes gloss them reason by reason. What is set down below is all a record of how the ancient masters cite this chapter — and on the open case of "whether the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word" it still does not adjudicate on their behalf (the ancient masters raise it to establish their proof; the present layer transmits their establishing of the proof, and renders no partial verdict).
-
Kuiji, Notes on the Cheng Weishi Lun T43n1830 [窺基《成唯識論述記》]:
- 0351c19「第二、引《莊嚴論》成立是佛語」["second, citing the Sūtrālaṃkāra to establish that it is the Buddha's word"] — marking that the Cheng Weishi Lun cites this chapter as a warrant for the apologetic.
- 0354a07「彼論第一卷第二品說，先略為八因，後廣為細各各分別」["that treatise, in the second chapter of its first scroll, states them first in brief as eight reasons, then in full and in detail, each distinguished separately"] — fastening this chapter as the second chapter of scroll one of the Sūtrālaṃkāra (that is, the Chapter on Establishing the Teaching), the eight reasons being given first in brief and then in full.
- 0352b17「今《莊嚴論》說有八因，依勘梵本但有七種；此中第五『有、無有』因，彼別離之，故為八種」["now the Sūtrālaṃkāra states that there are eight reasons; by collation with the Sanskrit manuscript there are but seven kinds — here the fifth reason, 'being / not-being,' is split apart there, making it eight kinds"] — the opening-and-combining of eight reasons versus seven upon collating the Sanskrit manuscript (the fifth, "substance / non-substance," being originally combined into one).
- Reason-by-reason gloss: (1) not-predicted 0352b24「一、不記故，無『先』字也，《顯揚》同此」["one, because it was not predicted; there is no word 'beforehand'; the Xianyang agrees with this"] · (2) concurrent-arising 0352c24「同行者，同一時行也」["'concurrent-arising' means arising at the very same time"] · (3) not-practicable 0353a08「不行故，謂聲聞智不能行故」["because not-practicable, meaning that the śrāvaka's knowledge cannot practice it"] · (5) substance and (6) non-substance 0353b05「第五體，第六非體，二合為一」["the fifth, substance, and the sixth, non-substance — the two combined into one"] · (7) being-a-remedy 0353c16「能持勤修行時，得無分別智，對治一切煩惱」["when one is able to sustain diligent cultivation, one gains non-conceptual knowledge, which remedies all the afflictions"].
- 〔On the author〕0352b12「《莊嚴論》頌文彌勤所說，長行釋者世親所為。舊人不知，總謂天親作，謬也」["the verses of the Sūtrālaṃkāra were spoken by Maitreya; the prose commentary was made by Vasubandhu. The men of old, not knowing this, all said Vasubandhu (Tianqin) composed it — this is mistaken"] — Kuiji attributes the verses to Maitreya (the CBETA text reads 「彌勤」; Kuiji's note below, 「梵言梅呾利耶，此翻言慈氏」["in Sanskrit Maitreya, here rendered 'the Loving One'"], identifies Maitreya) and the prose commentary to Vasubandhu, while rejecting the claim that Vasubandhu composed the whole. This is Kuiji's account, recorded alongside the other ancient accounts.
-
Taehyŏn, Study-Notes on the Cheng Weishi Lun X50n0818 [太賢《成唯識論學記》]: 0066b19「如莊嚴論：佛不記故，知是佛說」["as the Sūtrālaṃkāra says: because the Buddha did not predict it, one knows it is the Buddha's word"] · 0067a05「莊嚴論釋亦開為二，謂體、非體」["the commentary on the Sūtrālaṃkāra likewise splits it into two, namely substance and non-substance"] · 0067a16–a17「有言久行聲聞乘得大菩提者，不然，方便故，如搆牛角不出乳故」["some say that one who has long practiced the śrāvaka vehicle attains great awakening — not so, for lack of the skillful means, just as milking a bull's horn yields no milk"] (a condensed citation of this chapter's "not-practicable" reason — this treatise reads 「譬如搆角求乳，不可得故」["just as milking a horn to seek milk cannot be obtained"], the Study-Notes reads 「搆牛角不出乳」["milking a bull's horn yields no milk"], the wording slightly differing while the meaning is the same) · 0067b04, carrying over the Cheng Weishi Lun's own text 「如莊嚴論〔至〕異文故」["as the Sūtrālaṃkāra … through to … because of differing in letter"] (citing this chapter's eight reasons in conclusion).
Within the system: the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha likewise has a treatise of the same kind, "establishing that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word" (gathered under the higher wisdom / the ground of the knowable), which develops together with this chapter; the Yogācārabhūmi and the Cheng Weishi Lun inherit the import of the eight reasons.
V. Terms (名相 · first-occurrence · meaning)
- 大乘是佛說 [the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word]: the thesis this chapter establishes — that the Mahāyāna is the true dharma spoken by the Buddha himself.
- 聲聞乘 [the śrāvaka vehicle]: the vehicle that seeks one's own benefit, that recoils from and seeks nirvāṇa; the opponent in this chapter's dispute.
- 佛語三相 [the three marks of the Buddha's word]: entering the sūtra (the discourses) · displaying the vinaya (the discipline) · not contravening the emptiness of dharmas — the three criteria for testing "whether it is the Buddha's word."
- 無分別智 (nirvikalpa-jñāna) [non-conceptual knowledge]: the root knowledge that is free of the discrimination of grasper and grasped and directly realizes suchness; this chapter deems it the "profound" skillful means.
- 法空 [the emptiness of dharmas]: that all dharmas are without own-nature; what the bodhisattva cultivates, which this chapter judges as not contravening the three marks.
- 阿僧祇劫 [an incalculable aeon]: an incalculable, utterly long aeon. 阿梨耶識 (阿賴耶識, ālaya-vijñāna) [the store consciousness]: that is, the ālaya-vijñāna, the root consciousness that holds and stores the seeds.
- 忖度 [surmising]: conjecture and inference by worldly guessing (not direct realization); this chapter rebuts it as unable to enter the Mahāyāna.
VI. Similes (譬喻)
Milking a horn to seek milk (搆角求乳) — to press a bull's horn in search of milk, a vain effort that cannot succeed; a simile for how "one who long practices the śrāvaka vehicle's conduct yet seeks the fruit of great awakening" lacks the skillful means and in the end cannot obtain it. (A clean simile, doing no harm.)
Exposition's borrowed similes fastened to their source (not native to this treatise)
The similes and scriptural citations from other scriptures that the exposition draws in as aids to understanding are not found in this treatise's own text; their sources are fastened below, distinguished from the treatise's own similes and set down together as parallel groundwork.
- 〔The simile of the ox-print and the ocean-water〕: the Saṃyukta-āgama T02n0099, scroll 23, 0168b20–b21 — 「如大海之水，牛跡所不容，如是佛智海，餘人不能持。」["as the water of the great ocean cannot be held in an ox's footprint, so the ocean of the Buddha's wisdom others cannot hold."] The exposition uses it for 〔§IV, in glossing "the one who surmises and shrinks back — how could he grasp the meaning of the Mahāyāna" · a simile for the surmiser's measure of knowledge being narrow, his brimming conjectures unable to fathom the profundity of the Mahāyāna〕; and at §VI, in glossing "because you do not understand, my unsurpassed vehicle is thereby established," it draws again on this image of the ox-print and the great ocean ("that you cannot hold it" conversely proves "how deep it is").
VII. Cross-readings (互讀)
- The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha: a treatise of the same kind, "establishing that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word," which develops together with this chapter (the same rule for apologetic citation).
- The Yogācārabhūmi · the Cheng Weishi Lun: the import of the eight reasons, the mutual difference of the two vehicles, non-conceptual knowledge.
VIII. Witness collation (校本定位)
This chapter is T31n1604 0591a02–0593a02 (the Chapter on Establishing the Teaching complete).