俱舍論疏 19.119

19.119

論「是我屬我至見亦應別」，反難也。是我名我見，是第一轉聲。屬我名我所見，是第六轉聲。即謂兩見非是異門說一，謂是條然別見。由我如此，是第三轉聲。為我如此，是第四轉聲。應由我是一見，為我是一見。

The treatise's: "'Is self' and 'belongs to self' […] the views should also be different," is the counter-objection: "Is self" is called the view of self, being the nominative case (prathamā-vibhakti). "Belongs to self" is called the view of what belongs to self, being the genitive case (ṣaṣṭhī-vibhakti). That is to say, the two views are not one thing stated through different modes, but distinctly separate views. "By self it is thus" is the instrumental case (tṛtīyā-vibhakti). "For self it is thus" is the dative case (caturthī-vibhakti). It should follow that "by self" is one view, and "for self" is one view.