成唯識論述記 3.740

3.740

則預流下乃至所說，正是第四徵難辭。此下難中，以預流果例同彼菩薩，應捨賴耶名，然聖教不說。若謂菩薩雙斷二障，法我亦除，非預流者。此唯人見，名為執藏，非於法執。若不爾者，其阿羅漢應名不捨阿賴耶識，以有俱生法我見故。故知但以人執為藏，不以法執。第五段第三師會云：

The Commentary states: From "then a stream-enterer" down to "spoken of" is precisely the words of the fourth critique. In the critique below, using the fruit of the stream-enterer as an analogy for that bodhisattva, they ought to abandon the name ālaya, yet the sacred teachings do not say so. If it is said that the bodhisattva severs both obstacles and also removes the self of phenomena, unlike the stream-enterer: this is grasping as a storehouse only in terms of the view of a person, not with respect to grasping at phenomena. Were it not so, the arhat would be said not to abandon the ālayavijñāna, because innate view of self of phenomena exists. Therefore one knows that it is only grasping at a person that constitutes the storehouse, not grasping at phenomena. In the fifth section, the third master reconciles this, stating: