瑜伽論記 17.37

17.37

昉云：且約我慢說無事境，就實亦通有事。文言實無有我，而分別轉故者，此言總釋上說，見與慢是無事義，據實我慢亦是緣有事境。然今偏說慢名為無事，貪名有事者，以影略互顯故，二取等境雖復有體，而以我見為根本而起故。

Fang says: For now, it is explained in terms of the conceit of self having an object lacking an objective referent; in reality, it also extends to having an objective referent. The text says: 'Because there is truly no self, yet discrimination unfolds...'—this statement comprehensively explains the meaning stated above that views and conceit lack an objective referent. In truth, the conceit of self also takes an object having an objective referent. However, now specifically stating that conceit is called lacking an objective referent and greed is called having an objective referent is due to reciprocal ellipsis to illuminate each other; although the objects of the two attachments (clinging to views and clinging to precepts) have substantial existence, they nevertheless arise with identity view as their root.