[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 6.540 # 成唯識論述記 6.540 成唯識論述記 6.540 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.540](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6.540) 述曰：「自在」者，自在天也；「世主」即是大自在天，為世間主；「釋」謂帝釋；「梵」謂梵王；「餘物類」者，謂自性等，此未得定及已得定，不計彼為我，但計彼為常。故皆是邪見，不緣我有斷、常故。問：無不得彼定，別計彼為我，世間不計他地為我故。若設許得彼定，得起上惑，此我見緣彼為我，我身在此，未有色界法，計何為我？若緣欲界身計有我，亦是我見緣他地起。然有義者，謂色界我見，總緣現身為我，即通有色界法。此我見是總緣，故得緣他地。若別計一色等為我，即無他地緣，下論說然，此義應思。此計自在等如五十八，是計苦諦下邪見。 > The Commentary states: "Īśvara" is the god Īśvara; "Lord of the World" is Maheśvara, who is the master of the world; "Śakra" means Lord Śakra; "Brahmā" means King Brahmā; "other classes of things" means the primordial nature (prakṛti) and so forth. Those who have not attained absorption and those who have attained absorption do not grasp them as the self, but merely grasp them as permanent. Hence they are all wrong views, because they do not take the self as their object to be annihilated or permanent. Question: There is no case where, without attaining that absorption, one separately grasps that as the self, because worldly people do not grasp another realm as the self. If it is granted that having attained that absorption one can give rise to higher defilements, then when this view of self takes that as the self, while my body is here and does not yet have the phenomena of the form realm, what does it grasp as the self? If it takes the desire-realm body as object and conceives a self, that too would be a view of self arising with another realm as its object. However, some have argued that the view of self in the form realm takes the present body generally as the self, which then extends to having form-realm phenomena. This view of self takes a general object, so it can take another realm as an object. If it were to separately grasp one form, etc., as the self, there would be no taking another realm as object; the treatise below says so, and this point should be reflected upon. This conception of Īśvara and so forth, as in fascicle 58, is a wrong view under the truth of suffering. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.539](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6.539) - [Next: 6.541](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6.541) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.6.540) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6.540](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.6.540) · Pramāṇa