俱舍論記 29.86

29.86

「於彼所計至無真我體」者，此即破也。於彼外道諸有所計離蘊我中，無有真實現比量故。於三量中，所以不約聖言量證者，內外二道各謂自師所說聖教，以聖教證，互不稟承，故三量中但約現量比量以破。謂若我體離五蘊外別有實物，如餘有體法，若無障礙因緣，應現量得。十二處中如六境意，謂色等五境、眼等五識現量證得。於法境中，諸心、心所法及與意處，為他心智現量證得。謂若我體離五蘊外別有實物，如餘有體法，若無障礙因緣，應比量得如五色根。言五色根比量得者，如世間現見，雖有水土人功眾緣，由闕種子別緣，芽果即便非有；不闕種子別緣，芽果便有。如種生芽，見芽比知有種。此舉外喻。如是亦見，雖有色等現境、作意等緣，等取明空。若眼識，由色、作意、明、空四緣。若耳識，由聲、作意、空三緣。若鼻、舌、身三識，由作意及香、味、觸二緣。而諸盲、聾等識不起，以闕眼等別緣故。不盲、聾等識起，以有眼等別緣。定知別緣有闕之時識不得起，不闕之時識便得起。此別緣者，即眼等根。作意等是共緣，眼等是別緣，五識是果。由能發識，比知有根。如是名為色根比量。於離蘊我二量都無，非如六境意根現量得故、非如眼等五根比量得故，由此證知無真我體。此約現、比總破諸我。文中既不別標，明知總破。

[On the lemma]: "Among what they posit … there is no real entity of a self."
This is the refutation. Among the selves apart from the skandhas posited by those non-Buddhists, there is neither genuine direct perception (pratyakṣa) nor inference (anumāna). Among the three pramāṇas, the reason why scriptural testimony (śabda-pramāṇa) is not cited as proof is that both the internal and external traditions each claim that what their own teacher spoke is sacred teaching; if one proves it by sacred teaching, neither side would accept the other's. Therefore, among the three pramāṇas, the refutation is conducted solely by relying on direct perception and inference.
That is to say: if the entity of the self were an actual real entity apart from the five skandhas, like other real entities, then in the absence of obstructing causes and conditions, it ought to be apprehended by direct perception. Among the twelve āyatanas, like the six sense objects and the mind: that is, the five sense objects such as form and so forth are directly apprehended by the five consciousnesses such as the visual consciousness and so forth; among the objects of mental phenomena, all minds, mental factors, and the manāyatana are directly apprehended by the knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna).
Moreover, if the entity of the self were an actual real entity apart from the five skandhas, like other real entities, then in the absence of obstructing causes and conditions, it ought to be apprehended by inference, like the five physical sense faculties. That the five physical sense faculties are apprehended by inference means: as seen in the world, although there are many conditions such as water, soil, and human effort, due to the absence of the distinct condition that is the seed, the sprout and fruit simply do not exist; when the distinct condition that is the seed is not lacking, the sprout and fruit then exist. Just as a seed generates a sprout, seeing the sprout, one infers that there is a seed. This presents an external analogy.
Similarly, it is also seen that although there are present objects such as form, conditions such as attention (manaskāra), and so forth—"and so forth" includes light and space: visual consciousness requires four conditions: form, attention, light, and space; auditory consciousness requires three conditions: sound, attention, and space; the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body require two conditions: attention, along with smell, taste, or touch respectively—the consciousnesses of the blind, deaf, and so forth do not arise, because they lack the distinct condition of the eye and so forth. The consciousnesses of those who are not blind, deaf, and so forth arise, because they have the distinct condition of the eye and so forth. We know with certainty that when the distinct condition is lacking, the consciousness cannot arise; when it is not lacking, the consciousness does arise. This distinct condition is the eye and other faculties. Attention and so forth are common conditions, the eye and so forth are distinct conditions, and the five consciousnesses are the effects. Through their ability to produce consciousness, we infer that the faculties exist. This is called the inference of physical faculties.
For a self apart from the skandhas, neither of the two pramāṇas exists at all: it is not apprehended by direct perception like the six sense objects and the manas faculty, nor is it apprehended by inference like the five sense faculties such as the eye. Thus, it is proved that there is no real entity of a self. This is a general refutation of all selves by means of direct perception and inference. Since it is not specified individually in the text, it is clear that this is a general refutation.