俱舍論記 30.109

30.109

「此證非理至但有虛言」者，論主破。此證非理。夫引為證彼此極成，汝所引證皆不極成。謂說念等德句義攝，是實家德，體皆非實。義不極成。我許念等有別體故，皆名為實，非無體故。經說六實物，名沙門果故。六物謂無漏五蘊及與擇滅。於五蘊中，念等心、心所法既名實物，明知皆有實體。又彼念等依止實我，理亦不成。依義，如前心行依我中已遮遣故。由此所立但有虛言。

"This proof is not logical [...] there are only empty words": this is the master of the treatise refuting it. This proof is not logical. Whenever one adduces a proof, it must be universally accepted by both sides, yet what you adduce as proof is not universally accepted. To say that mindfulness and so forth are subsumed under the category of quality, are qualities of a substance, and that their substances are not real entities, is a meaning that is not universally accepted. For we accept that mindfulness and so forth have distinct substances, and are all called real entities, not being without substance. This is because the sūtra speaks of six real entities being called the fruits of asceticism (śramaṇaphala). The six entities refer to the five uncontaminated aggregates and analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Among the five aggregates, since mindfulness and other minds and mental factors are called real entities, it is clear that they all possess real substance. Furthermore, that mindfulness and so forth depend on a real self is also not logically established, because the meaning of 'support' was already refuted previously under the topic of mind and mental formations depending on the self. Therefore, what you establish consists of only empty words.