瑜伽論記 2.232

2.232

第二徵破無常者，此所作因，體是變異；執我有作，不應理等者，所作者生義，所作之因體，是變異無常之法，我是作者，仍言有常而有所作，不應道理。量云：我應非常，有所作故，如麁地等，若是常者，我應無所作，以是常故，如虛空等。

The second interrogation refutes impermanence: regarding ‘The cause of this action is intrinsically transformative; to assert that the self acts is illogical, etc.’: ‘that which is made’ has the meaning of being produced; the cause of that which is made is intrinsically a transformative and impermanent dharma. If the self is the agent, yet you say it is permanent and acts, this is illogical. The syllogism is: The self should be impermanent; because it acts; like gross earth, etc. If it were permanent, the self should perform no action; because it is permanent; like space, etc.