俱舍論記 30.36

30.36

「若謂實有至分明說故」者，論主又牒計證破。汝若謂有我，以契經言審諦而住；定執無我者墮惡見處故者。破云：此不成證。彼經亦說定執有我者墮惡見處故，不應計我。對法師言：執我有無，俱邊見攝。若執我有即墮常邊，若執我無即墮斷邊。論主許云：彼師所說深為應理，以執有、無墮常、斷邊，前《筏蹉經》分明說故，引說證成。

Regarding 'If one maintains that it is real [because the sūtra says ...] clearly stated': the author of the treatise takes up their thesis and scriptural proof to refute it. If you maintain that a self exists because a sūtra states: 'Dwelling in careful consideration; those who determinately grasp that there is no self fall into the locus of evil views', the refutation is: This does not constitute proof. That sūtra also states that those who determinately grasp that there is a self fall into the locus of evil views, so one should not posit a self. The Abhidharmikas say: Grasping at the existence or non-existence of a self are both subsumed under extreme views (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi). If one grasps that a self exists, one falls into the extreme of eternalism; if one grasps that a self does not exist, one falls into the extreme of annihilationism. The author of the treatise agrees, saying: What that master said is deeply reasonable, because grasping at existence or non-existence falls into the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism, as was clearly stated earlier in the Vatsagotra-sūtra; he cites this teaching to substantiate it.