成唯識論了義燈 5.85

5.85

答：依彼宗計，有邊常見，無邊斷見。若俱句者一分斷常，非有無邊者唯薩迦邪見。依大乘說，依我見後計有邊等故，有邊等見不是我見。或可大乘與彼有別。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》皆不說我，但執世界故邪見收。《婆沙》三說第一說中，初二天眼通，第三兼神境，第四遮前。第二說中據彼自世界傍布上下，更無別三千界，但依天眼。彼云：見竪有邊，見傍無邊。第三說中，但據我體有邊無邊，由有執我卷舒不定，故知宗別，不須和會。

Answer: According to that school's assertion, finitude is the view of eternity, and infinitude is the view of annihilation. If it is both, it is partial annihilation and eternity; if it is neither finite nor infinite, it is merely satkāyadṛṣṭi. According to the Mahāyāna, because one conceives finitude and so forth after [holding] the view of self, the views of finitude and so forth are not themselves the view of self. Or perhaps the Mahāyāna differs from that [school]: Yogācārabhūmi and Prakaraṇāryavācā both do not speak of a self, but only grasp the world, and are therefore subsumed under wrong views. Among the three explanations in the Vibhāṣā, in the first explanation, the first two rely on the divine eye, the third combines the psychic power (ṛddhi), and the fourth negates the previous ones. In the second explanation, based on one's own world being laid out horizontally and vertically with no other three-thousandfold world, it relies solely on the divine eye; it says: 'Seeing vertically it is finite; seeing horizontally it is infinite.' In the third explanation, it is solely based on whether the entity of the self is finite or infinite, because there are those who hold that the self contracts and expands unpredictably. Thus we know the schools differ, and there is no need to reconcile them.