成唯識論演祕 1.469

1.469

略有二釋，一云：雖復雙云我與非我，他本計我，非我兼說。故應雜云：如言我非我，然體實唯我，雖言蘊非蘊我，應定是蘊。二云：此是伏難，難云計我與蘊不即不離，不即不離正是本計，明我非我亦合本計，如何非我不是正破？為此破云：應定是蘊，如似其我，我是正計，是彼本義。《疏》取本意難令即蘊，例意同前。

There are briefly two explanations. The first says: Although both 'self' and 'non-self' are mentioned, the other fundamentally posits the self, and non-self is spoken of secondarily. Therefore, it should be said heterogeneously: just as one says 'self and non-self', yet the substance is really only the self; although one says 'aggregates and non-aggregates', the self should definitely be the aggregates. The second says: This is an implicit objection. The objection says: Positing that the self is neither identical to nor separate from the aggregates—being neither identical nor separate is precisely their fundamental view; explaining self and non-self also conforms to their fundamental view. How is non-self not the direct refutation? For this reason it refutes: It should definitely be the aggregates, just like their self—the self is their direct view, their fundamental doctrine. The *Commentary* takes the fundamental intention to challenge it into being identical to the aggregates; the analogical intention is the same as before.