俱舍論記 30.17

30.17

「又許蘊生至與蘊有異」者，論主又破。許蘊新生非數取趣，則定許我異蘊及常。如何汝宗言不異蘊及非常耶？又我唯一、蘊體有五，寧不說我與蘊有異？

Regarding 'Moreover, if it is accepted that the aggregates arise [anew ... there is difference from the aggregates]': the author of the treatise refutes [them] again. If you accept that the aggregates are newly arisen and are not the transmigrating entity (pudgala), then you necessarily accept that the self is different from the aggregates and is permanent. How can your school say that it is not different from the aggregates and not impermanent? Furthermore, the self is only one, while the entities of the aggregates are five; why do you not say that the self is different from the aggregates?