俱舍論疏 29.193

29.193

論「便違前說量不一不異」，論主難違宗也。若蘊、處、界是非我法，第五是我，我與蘊等一向非一，如何前說非一、非異？

The treatise says: "This contradicts your earlier statement that they are neither identical nor different." The author of the treatise presses the contradiction with their doctrine: if the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements are phenomena that are not-self, and the fifth [category] is the self, then the self and the aggregates and so forth are strictly non-identical. How could it have been said before that they are neither identical nor different?