成唯識論述記 5.684

5.684

述曰：「亡」由無也；「相」謂相狀。雜染相狀，通三性也。由我執故，起施等善法，由有第七內執我故，外行施等分別相生。若有漏三性俱心無我執者，如無漏心便能亡相，應成無漏，故《攝論》云：謂我能行施等。今有二解：一云，我者即是第七內緣行相，非必外緣；二云，此我外緣，行相麁猛非第七起，由第七故，第六起此，舉由七生增明為論，非實顯之，彼是第六識中我執，體有間斷，遍三性心間雜生故。此解為勝，是根本故，第七不緣外境生故。為證此義：

The Commentary states: “Extinguish” means to make absent; “marks” refers to characteristic forms. The characteristic forms of affliction pervade the three natures. Due to ātmagrāha, wholesome phenomena such as giving are generated; because the seventh consciousness internally grasps at a self, external acts of giving and so forth give rise to conceptualized marks. If the minds accompanying all three sāsrava natures were without ātmagrāha, then like anāsrava minds they would be able to extinguish marks and should become anāsrava. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Thinking, 'I can practice giving and so forth.'" Now there are two explanations: One says that this "self" is precisely the internal cognitive mode (ākāra) of the seventh consciousness and does not necessarily take external objects. The second says that this self takes external objects and its cognitive mode is coarse and fierce, not arising from the seventh; rather, due to the seventh, the sixth generates this, and it is discussed in terms of being generated and augmented by the seventh, not directly showing it, as it is the ātmagrāha within the sixth consciousness, whose substance has interruptions and arises interspersed throughout minds of the three natures. This latter explanation is superior, because it is the fundamental cause, and the seventh consciousness does not arise by taking external objects. To prove this meaning: