瑜伽論記 2.276

2.276

又若見少色少非色者，彼計我有邊，計色非色俱是我，但見少故名為有邊，見彼二無量，便起第二計我無邊，見色我少非色我無量者，或翻見此，便計第三我亦有邊亦無邊，第四句翻此可知，文別義同，更無別理，或離第三別有自體，謂得涅槃解脫之我遠離二種名非有邊非無邊，此四為先死後皆生諸有想地，故十六論合難想受所作我體無變異義，若無變異，云何有此變異不同唯難想受，二所變異無想俱非故略不說，後二四句與無想八及俱非八，初執我同，但是死後如前所說，生地有異無多別，故略而不說。

Furthermore, if seeing a small amount of form and a small amount of non-form, they posit that the self is finite. Positing that both form and non-form are the self, but seeing only a small amount, it is called finite; seeing both as immeasurable, they then raise the second [view], positing that the self is infinite; seeing the self as form to be small and the self as non-form to be immeasurable, or reversing this view, they then posit the third [view], that the self is both finite and infinite; the fourth clause is the reverse of this and can be understood accordingly. The wording differs but the meaning is the same, and there is no other principle. Alternatively, apart from the third clause, there is a distinct intrinsic nature: namely, the self that has attained nirvāṇa and liberation, being free from both, is called neither finite nor infinite. Taking these four as prior, after death they are all born in stages possessing ideation. Therefore, the sixteen treatises collectively challenge the meaning of the self-entity produced by ideation and feeling as being changeless. If it is changeless, how could there be these different variations? It challenges only the variations produced by these two, ideation and feeling; non-ideation and neither-ideation-nor-non-ideation are omitted for brevity and not mentioned. The latter two sets of four clauses, along with the eight of non-ideation and the eight of neither, are identical with the initial clinging to a self; it is just that after death, as explained before, their places of rebirth differ without many distinctions, and therefore they are omitted for brevity and not mentioned.