俱舍論記 1.241

1.241

「此釋越經至廣說如前」者，論主難。雖有此釋，不順聖言，隨俗浮言，何容准定？由與經說過去等義有相違故，此文但破後家分段。或可此文亦破前師能荷名蘊，雖復義釋符經順假亦無有違，然經中說聚義是蘊，故今亦破。

"This explanation departs from the sūtra ... as explained in detail before": the author of the treatise objects. Although there is this explanation, it does not conform to the sacred words; being mere worldly colloquial speech, how can it be accepted as a standard? Because it contradicts the meaning of past and so on stated in the sūtra, this text only refutes the latter school's explanation in terms of parts. Or it may be that this text also refutes the former master's explanation of bearing as skandha: although its semantic explanation tallies with the sūtra and conforms to being provisional without contradiction, yet because the sūtra states that the meaning of accumulation is skandha, it is now also refuted.