俱舍論記 29.94

29.94

「如是謬言至亦同此失」者，論主正破。如是謬言於義未顯，我猶未了，如何名依？若攬諸蘊是此我依義，既攬諸蘊成補特伽羅，則補特伽羅應成假有，如乳酪等攬色等成體是假故。若言不攬諸蘊，但因諸蘊是此我依義。既因諸蘊立補特伽羅，蘊從因生，我復因蘊而有，則補特伽羅亦同諸蘊從因而生。若我因生，此我成失，以汝執我非因生故。又解：既因諸蘊聚集立補特伽羅，則補特伽羅亦同諸蘊體是假有，以經部家許蘊假故。若我是假，此我成失，以汝執我體實有故。

[On the lemma]: "Such erroneous speech … also incurs this same fault."
The author of the treatise presents the refutation proper: Such erroneous speech does not clarify the meaning; I still do not understand: how is it said to depend? If gathering the skandhas is what is meant by this self depending, then since it gathers the skandhas to form the pudgala, the pudgala would have to be conceptually existent, just as milk, curd, and so forth gather form and so forth to form an entity that is conceptual. If you say it does not gather the skandhas, but simply that having the skandhas as cause is what is meant by this self depending, then since the pudgala is established depending on the skandhas as its cause, and the skandhas arise from causes while the self further exists through the skandhas as its cause, the pudgala would also, like the skandhas, arise from causes. If the self arises from causes, this self falls into fault, because you hold that the self does not arise from causes.
Another explanation: Since the pudgala is established based on the aggregation of the skandhas, the pudgala would also, like the skandhas, be conceptually existent in entity, because the Sautrāntikas accept that the skandhas are conceptual. If the self is conceptual, this self falls into fault, because you hold that the entity of the self is real.