成唯識論述記 5.138

5.138

述曰：火辨等解，此第二意。心所、心王各各有體，我、我所執行相不同。若緣王為我，心所為所，論應別說；說既不別，故述妄情。何謂妄情？為解此疑，曾無處言「緣觸」等故，觸等即是遍行五法。前說與彼第八俱者，論不言「緣」，今為七境設屬我所，深是妄情，以理驗教甚相乖角。若爾，以何為我所境？

[The Commentary states:] The interpretation of Citrabhāṇa and others; this is the second view. Caitasikas and cittarājas each have their own substance, and the cognitive modes of grasping at self and grasping at what belongs to a self are different. If taking the rāja as self and the caitasikas as what belongs to a self were the case, the treatises should have explained them separately; since they did not explain them separately, this recounts a mistaken sentiment. What is meant by a mistaken sentiment? To resolve this doubt: it is never said anywhere that it 'takes contact and the like as cognitive objects'; contact and the like are the five omnipresent dharmas. Though previously said to coexist with the eighth, the treatises do not speak of them being 'taken as cognitive objects'; now, to posit them as the seventh's objective realm and assign them to what belongs to a self is deeply mistaken, and examining scripture by reason shows they are in sharp contradiction. If so, what is the cognitive sphere of what belongs to a self?