俱舍論記 29.117

29.117

「又若爾者至便壞自宗」者，論主又引第四經破。又若此我是眼識緣，能生眼識，我應無常，經說因緣能生識者皆無常故。犢子不許我是無常。若彼轉救：我非識緣。破云：應非所識。若非所識，應非所知。若非所知，如何立有我？若不立有我，便壞自宗，自宗立我第五不可說法藏中攝。

Regarding "Furthermore, if that were so ... then your own tenet is destroyed": the author of the treatise cites a fourth sūtra to refute [their view]. Furthermore, if this self were the object-condition of eye-consciousness and could produce eye-consciousness, the self would be impermanent, because the sūtra states that whatever causes and conditions can produce consciousness are all impermanent. The Vātsīputrīyas do not accept that the self is impermanent. If they shift their defense: "The self is not an object-condition of consciousness," then it is refuted: "It should not be cognized." If it is not cognized, it should not be known. If it is not known, how could one establish that a self exists? If one does not establish that a self exists, then one's own tenet is destroyed, for one's own tenet establishes that the self is subsumed under the fifth, inexpressible receptacle of dharmas.