成唯識論了義燈 5.179

5.179

西明釋上緣貪會違云：或依別緣言總別者，且說五種，有其三句：一、唯總非別，謂薩迦耶見及邊邪見俱生、分別；二、唯別非總，謂嗔雖無正文，分別、俱生義亦無妨；三、通別總，謂貪、慢。今謂嗔、惑亦得總緣，與見、慢俱。邪見總撥，慢亦總㥄，嗔既許俱，何不總緣？身、邊亦別，如四分常。論緣彼梵王及大種等，若非計我說為斷常，非邊見故。然雖得上定方計梵王等，所起之見未必上故。

Ximing, explaining the contradiction concerning craving taking the higher as an object, says: Or relying on taking distinct objects to speak of general and distinct, let us speak of five kinds having three alternatives: first, only general and not distinct, which refers to the view of identity and the view of extremes, whether innate or conceptually discriminated; second, only distinct and not general, which refers to hatred—although there is no explicit text, in principle neither conceptually discriminated nor innate is barred; third, both distinct and general, which refers to craving and conceit. Now I say: the affliction of hatred can also take a general object, coexisting with views and conceit. Since wrong view universally repudiates, and conceit also universally disdains, and since hatred is admitted to coexist [with them], why would it not take a general object? Identity and extremes are also distinct, as in the fourfold eternalism. The Treatise takes that Brahmā, the great elements, etc., as objects; if one does not conceive a self and speak of annihilation or permanence, it is not a view of extremes. However, although one must attain a higher concentration to then conceive Brahmā and so forth, the view arisen does not necessarily belong to the higher.