瑜伽論記 17.40

17.40

三藏云：准正理論文會釋。謂彼論云：如經曰：見所斷惑無事所緣，修所斷惑有事所緣。釋此經文，有其三說。一云，薩迦耶見名為無事無實我故，餘見斷惑以彼我見為根本故亦說無事，若修所斷非以我見為根本，故說為有事；二云：四見無中增益，一見有中損減。然其正理無增減事故，言見惑名為無事，修所斷惑非增減執故言有事。三云：四諦理中無麁顯事，故迷彼惑名為無事，修所斷惑緣麁顯事，故言有事。

The Tripiṭaka Master says: They should be reconciled based on the text of the Nyāyānusāra. That treatise says: As the sūtra states, 'Afflictions abandoned by seeing take an intentional object lacking an objective referent; afflictions abandoned by cultivation take an intentional object possessing an objective referent.' Explaining this sūtra text, there are three interpretations. One says: Identity view is called lacking an objective referent because there is no real self; because the other afflictions abandoned by seeing take that identity view as their root, they are also said to lack an objective referent. Those abandoned by cultivation do not take identity view as their root, hence they are said to possess an objective referent. The second says: Four views superimpose onto non-existence, and one view deprecates within existence; but correct principle contains no phenomenon of superimposition or deprecation, hence the afflictions of seeing are called lacking an objective referent, whereas afflictions abandoned by cultivation are not grasps of superimposition or deprecation, hence they are said to have an objective referent. The third says: In the principle of the four truths there is no coarse, manifest phenomenon, hence the delusion that errs regarding them is called lacking an objective referent; afflictions abandoned by cultivation take coarse, manifest phenomena as intentional objects, hence they are said to have an objective referent.