俱舍論疏 29.131

29.131

論「已分明許至故釋非理」，重述破異也。汝若言火與薪俱及依薪故名火依薪。此即分明許火、薪體別，火隨薪滅。如是應許諸蘊若無，補特伽羅體亦非有。而不許然，故釋非理。

On the Śāstra's statement: "Having already clearly admitted […] therefore your explanation is unreasonable": This restates the refutation of difference. If you say that because fire is simultaneous with fuel and rests upon fuel it is called 'fire dependent on fuel', this is clearly to admit that the entities of fire and fuel are distinct, and that fire ceases along with fuel. In this way, you should admit that if the aggregates do not exist, the entity of the pudgala would also not exist. But you do not admit this; therefore your explanation is unreasonable.