成唯識論述記 6.568

6.568

述曰：類教也。《顯揚》第一、《大論》第八說故，於五蘊計常、斷，通俱生、分別；不簡俱生，無常見故。釋現觀者，觀先所斷我無之時，但有斷見，故唯說斷，非預流等許無常見。若爾，前師如何釋後所引文？此依總語，非許常見亦通俱生。通俱生常見有何相狀？如禽獸造、集，但為有我，非為計常，常必由邪分別等故。然此二說，初則文全理闕，後有文顯理全。俱生常見有相狀故，俱取無失。

The Commentary states: This assimilates other teachings. Because Prakaraṇāryavācā, fascicle 1, and the Great Treatise, fascicle 8, state that grasping at permanence or annihilation with respect to the five aggregates applies to both the innate and the intellectually formed; they do not exclude the innate by claiming it lacks the view of permanence. In explaining the person of direct realization: when observing the non-existence of the self that was previously eradicated, they have only the view of annihilation; therefore, [those texts] speak only of annihilation, not that stream-enterers and the like are conceded to lack the view of permanence. If so, how does the earlier master explain the text cited later? That [earlier master's view] relies on a general statement, not conceding that the view of permanence also applies to the innate. What characteristic does the innate view of permanence have? The construction and gathering by birds and beasts is merely for the sake of having a self, not for the sake of conceiving permanence; permanence necessarily requires false discrimination and the like. However, between these two explanations, the former is complete in scriptural citation but deficient in reasoning, whereas the latter is evident in scripture and complete in reasoning. Since the innate view of permanence has discernible characteristics, accepting both involves no error.