俱舍論記 29.106

29.106

「又彼施設至應言依眼等」者，此即第四約所託破。又施設我，應更確陳為何所託？汝若言託蘊。破云：假義已成。以施設我，不託我故。汝若言此我託我。破云：如何上言依諸蘊立？理則但應說依補特伽羅。既汝不許我依於我，故唯託蘊。汝若謂有蘊，此我則可知，故我上言此依蘊立者。破云：是則諸色境有眼等緣，方可了知彼色等故，應言色等依眼等立。然五色境雖由根知，不說依根。我亦應爾，雖依蘊知，不應依蘊。

As for 'Furthermore, regarding its designation... one should say it relies on the eye and so forth': This is the fourth part, refuting based on what it depends upon. Furthermore, regarding the designation of the self, you should state more precisely: what does it depend upon? If you say it depends upon the aggregates, the refutation states: Its status as a nominal designation is already proven, because the designated self does not depend upon the self. If you say this self depends upon the self, the refutation states: How could you state above that it is established relying on the aggregates? In principle, one should only say it relies on the pudgala. Since you do not accept that the self relies on the self, it depends solely on the aggregates. If you say that when there are aggregates, this self can be known, and for that reason I stated above that it is established relying on the aggregates, the refutation states: Then, since objects of form and so forth can only be cognized when there are conditions such as the eye, one should say that form and so forth are established relying on the eye and so forth. However, although the five sensory objects are cognized through the faculties, they are not said to rely on the faculties. The self should also be like this: although it is known relying on the aggregates, it should not be said to rely on the aggregates.