成唯識論述記 1.294

1.294

述曰：自下第三，總破上二差別執我。於中有四：初有思慮、無思慮破；二、有作用、無作用破；三、我見境、非我見境破；四、我、非我見境，我見不緣破。今總問前所執諸我故，言「諸」也。有思慮者，意。問僧佉，彼說神我，體是思故；無思慮者，問吠世等。然僧佉計神我體性常住，除自性外，二十三諦體性雖常，仍有轉變、無常之相。今難彼我，亦應同彼二十三諦，體、性俱應轉變、無常。

The Commentary states: The third section below generally refutes the above various distinct attachments to a self. In this there are four: first, the refutation by endowed with deliberation versus devoid of deliberation; second, the refutation by endowed with activity versus devoid of activity; third, the refutation by object of the self-view versus not an object of the self-view; fourth, the refutation that whether it is the object of the self-view or not, the self-view does not take it as an object. Now it universally inquires into all the selves previously posited, hence it says 'all'. 'Endowed with deliberation' is intended to inquire of the Sāṃkhyas, because they say the puruṣa's substance is thought (cetanā); 'devoid of deliberation' inquires of the Vaiśeṣikas and others. However, the Sāṃkhyas posit that the substance and nature of the puruṣa is permanent, and that apart from prakṛti, although the substance and nature of the twenty-three principles (tattvas) are permanent, they still have the marks of transformation and impermanence. Now we challenge their self that it should also be like those twenty-three tattvas: both its substance and its nature should undergo transformation and be impermanent.