瑜伽師地論略纂 3.58

3.58

十、施設眾見難中有三：一、難我見善不善；二、難無我見善不善；三、難我及我見計為我邪。我見有二：一、執我見，彼說顛倒；二、緣我慧，彼說非倒。今雙問云。初難善者，問緣我慧。量云：緣我之慧亦應顛倒，緣我慧故，如執我見。或設難：執我見若是善者，如文可知。「若不善者，不應說正及非顛倒」者，見已不善，應非順境，如何名正？我有稱心緣起我覺所執之我，說非顛倒。《唯識》敘彼云：若爾，如何執有我者所信至教，皆毀我見，稱讚無我等，乃至廣說。故今問彼無我之見。「若言是善」者，外道亦讚無我見故。「若言不善，而一切智者」，此縱彼師名一切智，讚無我見，速證涅槃。今說為不善故，不應道理。若說佛為一切智者讚無我見，他不信故。

In the tenth challenge concerning the positing of various views, there are three parts: first, challenging whether the view of a self is wholesome or unwholesome; second, challenging whether the view of no-self is wholesome or unwholesome; third, challenging whether the self and the view of a self are falsely conceived as a self. The view of a self has two aspects: first, the view that grasps a self, which they say is erroneous; second, the wisdom (prajñā) that takes the self as its object, which they say is non-erroneous. Now both are questioned. The initial challenge regarding wholesomeness questions the wisdom that takes the self as its object. The formal inference is: The wisdom taking the self as its object should also be erroneous; because it is a cognition taking the self as its object; just like the view that grasps a self. Or the hypothetical challenge is: if the view grasping a self were wholesome, it can be understood as in the text. Regarding "If it is unwholesome, it should not be called correct and non-erroneous": if the view is already unwholesome, it should not conform to its object, so how could it be called correct? It says: The self exists, and the cognition of a self that conforms to one's mind and takes conditions as its object grasps a self, which they say is non-erroneous. The Vijñaptimātratā narrates their position: If so, why do the authoritative teachings trusted by those who grasp the existence of a self all condemn the view of a self and praise selflessness, and so on at length? Therefore, they are now questioned about the view of selflessness. Regarding "If you say it is wholesome": because non-Buddhists also praise the view of selflessness. Regarding "If you say it is unwholesome, yet an omniscient one [praises it]": this concedes that their teacher is called omniscient, who praises the view of selflessness as quickly realizing nirvāṇa. Now to say it is unwholesome is therefore unreasonable. If one says the Buddha is an omniscient one who praises the view of selflessness, the other would not believe it.