俱舍論記 30.16

30.16

「又如明等至為喻不成」者，論主又約喻破。又如明論等，與祠者等身異，蘊亦應異我。如何言不異？老身、病身各與前位身有別異，亦應蘊與補特伽羅異。若言少身好身轉作身，便同數論變義宗。數論轉變，如前已遣。故彼所引祠者生等為喻不成。

Regarding '[Moreover, just as the Vedas, etc. ...] the example is not established': the author of the treatise refutes [them] again with reference to the example. Moreover, just as the Vedas and so forth are distinct from the bodies of the sacrificer and the like, the aggregates should also be distinct from the self. How can you say they are not distinct? The aged body and the diseased body are each distinct from the body at the previous stage; thus the aggregates should also be distinct from the person (pudgala). If you say that the youthful body or the handsome body transforms into [that other] body, then you agree with the Sāṃkhya doctrine of transformation. The Sāṃkhya [view of] transformation has already been refuted above. Therefore, their citation of the sacrificer being born and so forth as an example is not established.