大般涅槃經集解 33.34

33.34

案僧亮曰：證不見者說是妄語也。一切有為皆是無常者，將就有為說無常義，更以有無相對也。僧宗曰：舉其計常中第七句，言前後相續相似語，其體念念生滅，豈有常耶？寶亮曰：計云先見瓶衣等，後時亦識，當知有一神我常故常。故如此也。下去唯有兩難。初云：汝心若常，應同佛一切智，用常自無移種。眼識對塵時，應獨緣一切法。而今不爾，念念生滅，緣此捨彼，故知心是無常。第二難將境以決心。心若果從緣生而常者，應恒守一法，不得改心易緣也。何以然？心既是常，應常觀無常，不得復緣空無我。而今心遍緣一切境，故知無常也。

Sengliang comments: He who proves that it is not seen is called a speaker of false speech. Regarding 'all saṃskṛta dharmas are impermanent,' this proceeds directly from saṃskṛta dharmas to explain the meaning of impermanence, further contrasting existence and non-existence.
Sengzong says: He brings up the seventh statement among their assertions of permanence, which speaks of an antecedent and a subsequent continuing in similarity; yet its substance arises and perishes from thought-moment to thought-moment—how could it be permanent?
Baoliang says: They reckon, 'Having formerly seen a vase, clothing, and so forth, one also recognizes it later; hence one should know that there is a spiritual ātman that is permanent, and therefore it is permanent.' It is because of this [that the refutation follows]. Below there are only two refutations. The first says: 'If your mind were permanent, it should be identical with the Buddha's sarvajñatā, and its functioning, being permanent, would naturally have no shifts. When the eye-consciousness confronts a sensory object, it ought alone to apprehend all dharmas. Yet now it is not so: it arises and perishes from thought-moment to thought-moment, apprehending this and abandoning that; therefore we know that the mind is impermanent.' The second refutation determines [the nature of] the mind by using the object. If the mind truly arose from conditions and yet were permanent, it ought constantly to hold to a single dharma and not be able to alter its mind and change its conditions. Why so? Since the mind would be permanent, it should constantly contemplate impermanence and not be able further to cognize emptiness and non-self. Yet now the mind universally cognizes all objects; therefore we know it is impermanent.