俱舍論頌疏論本 29.64

29.64

論主破云：「汝所執我為實為假？若言是實，應與蘊異，有別性故，如色等實與受等異。又有實體，必應有因，如五蘊實從因生故。若計因生，是則無常，便違汝宗我非無常。若有實體不從因生，應是無因，同外道見。又汝計我非無為也。若非因生，又非無為，汝所執我應成無用。若我是假，便同我說，無實我故。」

The treatise master refutes this, saying: 'Is the self you hold substantially real or nominal? If you say it is substantially real, it should be different from the skandhas because it would have a distinct nature, just as real matter and so forth are different from sensation and so forth. Furthermore, if it has a substantial entity, it must necessarily have a cause, just as the real five skandhas are born from causes. If you assert it is born from causes, then it is impermanent, which contradicts your school's [assertion that] the self is not impermanent. If it has a substantial entity but is not born from causes, it would be uncaused, which is identical to the views of tīrthikas. Furthermore, you assert that the self is not unconditioned. If it is not born from causes and is also not unconditioned, the self you hold would be useless. If the self is nominal, then it is identical to what I say, because there is no real self.'