俱舍論記 29.105

29.105

「又彼若許至非第五故」者，此即第三約五法藏破。爾焰，此云所知，舊云知母，不然。彼犢子部立所知法藏總有五種，謂三世為三，無為第四，不可說第五。即補特伽羅是不可說攝。彼宗立我，若在生死中，與三世五蘊不可定說一、異；若捨生死入無餘涅槃，又與無為不可定說一、異，故說此我為其第五不可說法藏。故牒破云：又彼若許我與五蘊若一若異俱不可說，則彼所許五種所知，亦應不可說具有五種。以我與前四法藏不可說為異故，不可說為第五法藏；以與前四法藏不可說為一故，不可說為非第五。非第五者，即是前四法藏。既第五、非第五俱不可說，但應建立前四法藏，不應別立第五法藏。又真諦師云：「神我若異前四則是可言，不應立第五為不可言。若不異前四，則唯有四，無第五不可言。故不可說第五及非第五。」

As for 'Furthermore, if they accept... because it is not the fifth': This is the third part, refuting based on the five repositories of dharmas. *Jñeya*, here translated as 'the knowable'; the old translation was 'mother of knowledge', which is incorrect. The Vātsīputrīya school establishes five kinds of repositories of knowable dharmas in total: the three periods of time make three, the unconditioned is the fourth, and the inexpressible is the fifth. The pudgala is subsumed under the inexpressible. That school posits that as for the self, if it is in saṃsāra, it cannot be definitively stated to be identical to or distinct from the five aggregates across the three periods of time; if it abandons saṃsāra and enters nirvāṇa without remainder, it also cannot be definitively stated to be identical to or distinct from the unconditioned. Therefore, this self is stated to be their fifth inexpressible repository of dharmas. Hence, citing and refuting this: Furthermore, if they accept that whether the self is identical to or distinct from the five aggregates is entirely inexpressible, then the five kinds of knowables accepted by them should also be inexpressible as having five kinds. Because the self cannot be expressed as distinct from the preceding four repositories of dharmas, it cannot be expressed as the fifth repository of dharmas; because it cannot be expressed as identical to the preceding four repositories of dharmas, it cannot be expressed as not the fifth. 'Not the fifth' means precisely the preceding four repositories of dharmas. Since neither the fifth nor not-the-fifth can be expressed, one should only establish the preceding four repositories of dharmas, and should not separately establish a fifth repository of dharmas. Furthermore, Master Paramārtha says: 'If the spiritual self were distinct from the preceding four, it would be expressible, and one should not establish a fifth as inexpressible. If it were not distinct from the preceding four, there would be only four, and no fifth inexpressible. Therefore, neither the fifth nor not-the-fifth can be expressed.'