瑜伽論記 2.229

2.229

第四徵難云：若取現義者，唯色等蘊是現量義，我非現量義故不應理者，義者境也。彼宗計我。非現量境。今言現境，是設遮破，唯五蘊是現量義，彼此共成，我非現義汝宗自述。今言現境乃是違宗，唯廣百論數論計，我非現量境，若勝論師執我是現量境也。此覺若取比量境者，此我之覺童稚亦起，彼未能思不能比度，不應卒爾我覺得生。量云：嬰孩我覺應不得生，無思度故，如石女兒。

The fourth interrogation challenges: ‘If it grasps a directly perceived referent, only the aggregates such as form are directly perceived referents, and the self is not a directly perceived referent; therefore it is illogical.’ A referent is an object. That system asserts the self is not an object of direct perception. Saying now ‘a directly perceived object’ is a hypothetical refutation: only the five aggregates are directly perceived referents, which is established by both parties; that the self is not a directly perceived referent is your own system’s account. To say now that it is a directly perceived object would contradict your own school. Only the Sāṃkhya in the *Śataśāstra-vaipulya* asserts that the self is not an object of direct perception; whereas the Vaiśeṣika master holds that the self is an object of direct perception. If this awareness grasps an object of inference, this awareness of a self also arises in young children; they are not yet able to deliberate or infer, so the awareness of self should not abruptly arise. The syllogism is: The awareness of self in an infant should not be able to arise; because of the absence of deliberation; like the son of a barren woman.