成唯識論述記 1.310

1.310

述曰：破本計「非我見所緣」。量云：汝所執我，應非是我；許非我見之所緣故；如色、聲等。又此量意云：汝能緣我心、心所法，應不知我；非我見故；如緣餘心。文雖無救，以理為之。如緣真如心、心所法，雖不定作真如之解，得成緣如。緣我之心亦同於彼，雖不作我解，何妨得緣我。緣如之心雖不作「如」解，真如仍名「如」。心緣我見，雖不作「我」解，其我應名我見緣。故為此解，助破彼失。

The Commentary states: This refutes the fundamental positing that it is 'not the cognitive object of the self-view'. The formal inference is: The self you hold should not be a self; because it is admitted to not be the cognitive object of the self-view; like form, sound, and so on. Furthermore, the meaning of this inference is: The mind and mental factors of yours that cognize the self should not know the self; because they are not the self-view; like minds cognizing other things. Although the text has no rejoinder, it is constructed through reasoning: just as the mind and mental factors cognizing tathatā, though not necessarily forming a conceptual understanding of tathatā, can cognize tathatā; the mind cognizing the self is also like that—although it does not form a conceptual understanding of 'self', what prevents it from cognizing the self? Though the mind cognizing tathatā does not form an understanding of 'tathatā', tathatā is still called 'tathatā'. When the mind is cognized by the self-view, although it does not form an understanding of 'self', that self should be called the object of the self-view. Therefore, this explanation is made to assist in refuting their error.