成唯識論了義燈 7.200

7.200

西明、《要集》俱云我相通攝二執，餘處亦言法、我等故。今謂：本釋以彼名濫，故云「不然」，非不知我通攝二執。此意：若以我言，通二執故。但言我相障，應但云我相空，亦即攝二空，諸處何須別言我、法？西明說「異生性通依現、種」者，不爾。此論第一及今此文，皆云依彼分別種立，雖下「執著我、法愚」言即此障，不定現行，下二說故，無文明說通依現故。

Both Ximing and the Yaoji say that the mark of self comprehensively includes both graspings, because elsewhere it also speaks of dharma, self, and so forth. I now say: The original commentary stated "incorrect" because that term is ambiguous, not because it did not know that "self" comprehensively includes both graspings. The intention is: if the word "self" is used because it includes both graspings, then if one simply calls it the "obstacle of the mark of self", one should simply say "emptiness of the mark of self" and that would also subsume the two emptinesses; why would various passages need to speak separately of self and dharmas? As for Ximing's statement that "pṛthagjanahood depends generally on manifest activity and seeds", it is not so. Both the first fascicle of this treatise and the present text state that it is established relying on those discriminated seeds; although the later phrase "delusion of grasping onto self and dharmas" refers to this obstacle, it is not definitely manifest activity, because the two explanations below follow; there is no explicit textual statement that it depends generally on manifest activity.