俱舍論記 30.6

30.6

「不可說事至補特伽羅」者，論主為釋。就釋中，先難、後釋。難云：汝宗所立第五不可說法藏事，亦不應說。所以者何？亦曾未見故。又難例釋。難云：能取重擔應非蘊攝，重擔自取曾未見故。此中難意：我是能荷即非蘊攝，取是能取應非蘊攝。例釋云：然經說愛因名取果重擔者，愛是能取。既即蘊攝，能荷蘊者亦應蘊攝，即於諸蘊上假立數取趣。然佛恐彼犢子部經謂此我體是第五不可說法藏常住實有，故此經後佛自釋言：但隨世俗說此具壽有如是名，乃至廣說眾多名字，如上所引人經文句。為令了此五蘊假我，可說無常非實有性，即五取蘊自相逼害得擔害名。前前剎那引後後故，故名為荷者。此即前因能荷後果，故非實有補特伽羅。

"The ineffable entity... pudgala": the author of the treatise explains this. Within the explanation, he first challenges, then explains. The challenge: The entity of the fifth, ineffable repository of dharmas posited by your school should also not be spoken of. Why is this? Because it too has never been seen. He further challenges with an analogical explanation: The one who takes up the heavy burden should not be subsumed under the skandhas, because the heavy burden taking up itself has never been seen. The meaning of the challenge here is: If the self is the bearer and thus not subsumed under the skandhas, the taking up is the agent of taking and should also not be subsumed under the skandhas. The analogical explanation: However, the sūtra speaks of craving, the cause, as taking up the fruit, the heavy burden; craving is the agent of taking. Since it is already subsumed under the skandhas, the bearer of the skandhas should likewise be subsumed under the skandhas, and a pudgala is merely nominally established upon the skandhas. However, the Buddha feared that the Vātsīputrīya sūtras would hold this substance of the self to be permanent and truly existent as the fifth, ineffable repository of dharmas; therefore, following this sūtra, the Buddha himself explained: "It is only according to worldly convention that one says this venerable one has such a name..." and so on at length, down to many names, just as the sentences of the Sūtra on the Person cited above. In order to make them understand that this nominal self of the five skandhas can be spoken of as impermanent and not of a real nature, the five appropriation-aggregates themselves mutually oppress and harm each other, thus receiving the name 'burden'; because preceding moments induce succeeding moments, they are termed 'bearing.' This means the preceding cause can bear the succeeding fruit, so there is no substantially real pudgala.