瑜伽論記 15.297

15.297

三藏更勘梵本論無復此必字善順道理，何者？若有必字，即是現在未滅眼故，不得非眼同為全無，有眼種名不成界，為有種子不得生眼名不成耶？

The Tripiṭaka Master re-examined the Sanskrit text of the treatise, and it lacks this character "must" (bi, 必), which accords well with reason. Why? If there were the character "must," then it would refer to a present eye that has not yet ceased, and so one could not make it identical with non-eye as being completely absent. Does having the seed of the eye mean that the realm is unconstituted, or does having the seed without being able to generate the eye mean that it is unconstituted?