瑜伽論記 14.388

14.388

基云：若轉言生滅相違，生因非滅因，住滅不相返，住因即滅因。今破云：又法若停住可待滅緣方滅，而不待緣任運滅，住既無因，何能待滅緣？以任運滅故，故知諸行不待緣滅，應立量云：眼等諸色離剎那住外無別住（宗），是有為故有生滅故（因），本比量也。亦可更以比量破云：眼等諸色應非久住（宗），所餘久住所不攝故（因），如燈電等（喻），若是久住定是所餘久住所攝，猶如虛空（同喻）。

Ji says: If they shift to say that arising and cessation are mutually contrary, so the cause of arising is not the cause of cessation, but abiding and cessation are not opposed, so the cause of abiding is the cause of cessation—now it is refuted: Furthermore, if a phenomenon remained and abided, it might wait for a condition for cessation and only then cease; but without waiting for a condition it ceases spontaneously. Since abiding has no cause, how could it wait for a condition for cessation? Because it ceases spontaneously, one therefore knows that conditioned factors do not wait for conditions to cease. One should formulate the inference: 'Forms such as the eye have no distinct abiding apart from momentary abiding (thesis), because they are conditioned and because they have arising and cessation (reason).' This is the original inference. One could also further refute with an inference, saying: 'Forms such as the eye should not abide for a long time (thesis), because they are not subsumed under the remaining things that abide for a long time (reason), like a lamp, lightning, and the like (example); if it abided for a long time, it would definitely be subsumed under the remaining things that abide for a long time, just like empty space (positive example).'