大般涅槃經義記 5.203

5.203

上來五句別以餘義破遣心常，次下三句正破前執。「心若常者，諸憶念法不應忘失」破前第三專念證常，常應定住，何緣忘失？所念忘失，判知非常。「心若常者，凡所讀誦不應增長」破前第七讀誦增長，常應定住，何緣增長？「心若常者，不應說言已作今作」破前第六算數增長，於中初先破他計常，就算數中數竟已作，正數今作，未數當作，常法一定，云何得有已作今作？「若有已作、今作」已下正顯無常。

The above five clauses separately refute and dispel the permanence of the mind using other arguments. Next, the following three clauses directly refute the earlier assertions. "If the mind were permanent, the things recalled should not be forgotten" refutes the earlier third assertion that single-minded mindfulness proves permanence: if permanent, it should remain fixed; on what grounds could it be forgotten? Since what is recollected is forgotten, one decisively knows it is not permanent. "If the mind were permanent, whatever one chants should not increase" refutes the earlier seventh assertion that chanting increases: if permanent, it should remain fixed; on what grounds could it increase? "If the mind were permanent, one should not say 'already done' or 'now doing'" refutes the earlier sixth assertion that counting numbers increases. Therein, it first refutes the other's imputation of permanence: in calculation, counting that has finished is "already done," counting currently is "now doing," and counting not yet done is "to be done." Since a permanent dharma is fixed, how could there be "already done" and "now doing"? From "If there are 'already done' and 'now doing'" onward, it directly reveals impermanence.