成唯識論掌中樞要 1.96

1.96

破非即離中，又有量云：汝所執我，不應說是我，我非他我；許不可說故；如有為、無為。此義雖可爾，不順文意，乃破一我，非一切故。又此論但破一師計我，非一切故。此解乃通破一切故。又但舉一法，足為同喻，何假有、無為。又論總令於我、非我聚，亦應不可說，如有為、無為。何得乃言如有、無為我，非他我。故應如疏。

In refuting [the view that the self is] neither identical nor different, there is another inference, saying: 'The self you cling to should not be spoken of as a self, nor is it a non-self [other than me]; because it is accepted as inexpressible; like the conditioned and the unconditioned.' Although this meaning is admissible, it does not accord with the intent of the text, for it refutes only one [particular concept of] self, not all of them. Furthermore, this treatise refutes only one teacher's conception of the self, not all. This explanation, however, would universally refute all. Furthermore, merely citing a single phenomenon would suffice as a similar example; what need is there for both the conditioned and unconditioned? Moreover, the treatise generally requires that with respect to the collections of self and non-self, they should also be inexpressible, like the conditioned and unconditioned. How could one say, like the conditioned and unconditioned, that it is self, not other-self? Therefore, one should follow the Commentary.