成唯識論述記 4.176

4.176

述曰：無實體故；不應於無體法生愛著故。不言無為者，內道小乘不計為著處，彼非著處故。外道云：我是著處我愛我，已不應即為能所著處，此共小乘諍賴耶無遮愛著處。此中除彼犢子部師，彼亦如前非著處破，非有為、無為故。上來總別破訖，前第一是總遮，次三隨增計度遮。下三別蘊遮，故有爾所。

The Commentary states: Because they lack real substantial entity; one should not produce attachment toward dharmas lacking real entity. The unconditioned is not mentioned because the Hinayāna within our Buddhist teaching does not posit it as an object of attachment, since it is not an object of attachment for them. Non-Buddhists say: 'The self is the object of attachment; I love myself'; but it is improper for the same thing to be both the subject and object of attachment. This debate is shared with the Hinayāna over the non-existence of the ālayavijñāna, in order to refute [improper] objects of attachment. Here we exclude the Vātsīputrīya masters, who are also refuted as before because [their self] is not an object of attachment, being neither conditioned nor unconditioned. Thus the general and specific refutations above are concluded. The first was a general refutation, the next three were refutations according to predominant conceptualizations, and the bottom three are refutations of specific aggregates; hence there are this many.