成唯識論述記 10.348

10.348

The Commentary states: Vasubandhu says: "Herein, one does not falsely calculate 'mine' and does not grasp 'mine', just as the people of Uttarakuru have no attachments." Asvabhāva says: "Because attachment to the Dharma, such as sūtras, is severed, one does not falsely calculate 'mine', viewing this as not belonging to oneself or another." The new Madhyāntavibhāga says: By penetrating this, even attachment to the Dharma is completely cut off. Another explanation says: what is spoken of here [in our text] is that those [explanations] do not exhaust the principle. One should say that this tathatā is free of attachments because it is not that which is relied upon and grasped by ātmagrāha, ātmamāna, ātmasneha, avidyā, antagrāhadṛṣṭi, ātmadṛṣṭi, and so forth; merely saying "mine" would make its nature too narrow. Because attachment to phenomena based on conditions is absent, ātmadṛṣṭi and so forth do not grasp tathatā as their basis; other treatises say that because this tathatā merely serves as an object, it is called "mine." Here it is only spoken of as the aggregation of objects of the self, because tathatā is not separate from those phenomena, and when ātmagrāha arises, it also grasps tathatā. Now, one does not produce grasps of the self and so forth toward it. If one merely says "view of self," it does not subsume "mine"; if one merely says "mine," it does not subsume "view of self." Now, saying "ātmagrāha" encompasses both the view [of self] and [grasping at] mine; the above should be explained according to this.