成唯識論述記 1.96

1.96

述曰：第二，例破餘小乘外道等也。小乘、外道不知唯識境離心無，妄計便起。且外道中於能、所緣皆執我、法，迷唯識故，如僧佉等。計思是我心有實體，即計能緣為我、法也，如吠世等。別有我體，非即是思，實有諸法即於所緣，計我、法也。其小乘中犢子等，計我為能知者，亦執有法。法藏部計心緣相應；化地部執緣俱有法；法救說心所體，即是思。此等種類，非唯是一，故今論言種種異計，破境實有。在此卷末及後卷初下第四卷、第七卷中唯識處說破心是無，諸識用別，體唯是一，及執離心無別心所，皆如第七卷說。例破餘計在此卷中及後卷說，讀者知之不能繁敘，此中皆應敘，比量破，尋下敘之。

The Commentary states: The second part refutes by analogy the remaining Hinayana, non-Buddhists, and so on. The Hinayana and non-Buddhists do not know that the objects of consciousness-only do not exist apart from the mind, so false clingings immediately arise. As for non-Buddhists, they cling to both the apprehending and the apprehended as self and phenomena because they are confused about consciousness-only, like the Sāṃkhyas and others: clinging that thinking is the self and that the mind has a real essence, they thus cling to the apprehending as self and phenomena; like the Vaiśeṣikas and others: there is a distinct essence of self which is not identical to thinking, and real dharmas exist, so regarding the apprehended they cling to self and phenomena. Among the Hinayana, the Vātsīputrīyas and others cling to the self as the knower, and also cling to the existence of dharmas. The Dharmaguptakas cling that the mind perceives associated dharmas; the Mahīśāsakas cling that it perceives co-existent dharmas; Bhadanta Dharmatrāta says that the essence of mental factors is just volition. Classes such as these are not just one; therefore the treatise now speaks of 'various disparate clingings'. Refuting the real existence of objects is explained at the end of this fascicle and the beginning of the next, and below in the fourth and seventh fascicles under the topic of consciousness-only; refuting that mind is nonexistent, that consciousnesses differ in function but are singular in essence, and clinging that there are no distinct mental factors apart from the mind are all as explained in the seventh fascicle. The analogical refutation of the remaining clingings is stated in this fascicle and subsequent fascicles; the reader should know this, as they cannot be recounted in detail. Here all should be recounted and refuted by inferences, which can be traced as recounted below.