俱舍論記 29.99

29.99

「謂非離薪至體應成斷」者，犢子部答。謂非離薪可立有火，而薪與火非異非一。自設難云：若火異薪，薪應不熱。既薪有熱，不得言異。若火與薪一，應所燒即能燒。既能、所別，不得言一。舉法同喻云：如是不離蘊立補特伽羅，然補特伽羅與蘊非異、一。若與蘊異，體應是常，不可言異。若與蘊一，體應成斷，不可言一。以彼計我非斷非常。

[On the lemma]: "It means that not apart from fuel … its entity would be annihilated."
The Vātsīputrīya answers: It means that fire cannot be established apart from fuel, yet fuel and fire are neither different nor identical. He raises an objection against himself: If fire were different from fuel, the fuel would not be hot; since fuel has heat, they cannot be said to be different. If fire were identical to fuel, the burned would be the burner; since burner and burned are distinct, they cannot be said to be identical. Drawing the parallel between dharma and analogy, he says: In this way, not apart from the skandhas is the pudgala established, yet the pudgala and the skandhas are neither different nor identical. If it were different from the skandhas, its entity would have to be eternal, so it cannot be said to be different. If it were identical to the skandhas, its entity would have to be annihilated, so it cannot be said to be identical. For they hold that the self is neither annihilated nor eternal.