俱舍論疏 30.138

30.138

論「又二物合至俱有滅壞」，論主破意與我合也。二物合有分限，不可遍合。我遍一切處，意有分限故。又彼外道自釋合相言，非至為先、後至名合。我與意合，意有分限，我應亦有分限。意移轉故我應移轉，意壞滅故我應壞滅。若不爾者，何名為合？

On the Śāstra's statement: "Furthermore, the contact of two things [...] would both have destruction": The author of the treatise refutes the contact of the mind with the self. The contact of two things has spatial boundaries; they cannot contact universally. The self is omnipresent, whereas the mind has spatial boundaries. Moreover, that non-Buddhist school itself explains the characteristic of contact by saying: non-reaching prior, reaching later is called "contact." If the self contacts the mind, and the mind has spatial boundaries, the self should also have spatial boundaries; because the mind moves, the self should move; because the mind is destroyed, the self should be destroyed. If it is not so, how can it be called "contact"?