俱舍論記 29.113

29.113

「若彼救言至便壞自宗」者，又牒救破。若彼救云：如此我與色不可定說是一是異，二種能了相望亦然。色之能了、我之能了，亦不可說定一定異。以所了不定一、異，能了亦非一、異，何得責言為一為異？論主破云：如我與色不可定說是一是異，此我即非是有為攝，是第五不可說法藏收。我之能了與色能了，亦不可說是一、是異，能了不應是有為攝，應是第五不可說法藏收。若許爾者，便壞自宗，自宗能了是三世法藏有為攝故。

As for 'If they rescue their position by saying... then they ruin their own doctrine': Citing the rescue and refuting it: If they rescue by saying: 'Just as this self and form cannot be definitively stated to be identical or distinct, the two cognizing [consciousnesses] viewed in relation to each other are also like this. The cognition of form and the cognition of the self also cannot be definitively stated to be identical or distinct. Since what is cognized is not definitively identical or distinct, what cognizes is also neither identical nor distinct; how can you reproach us asking whether they are identical or distinct?' The Author of the Treatise refutes it: 'Just as the self and form cannot be definitively stated to be identical or distinct, this self is therefore not subsumed under the conditioned, but is contained in the fifth inexpressible repository of dharmas. If the cognition of the self and the cognition of form also cannot be stated to be identical or distinct, the cognizing [consciousness] should not be subsumed under the conditioned, but should be contained in the fifth inexpressible repository of dharmas. If you accept this, you ruin your own doctrine, because your school holds that the cognizing [consciousness] is subsumed under the conditioned within the repositories of dharmas of the three periods of time.'