瑜伽論記 2.233

2.233

第三破中，有動作我等者，數論勝論我無動作，遍虛空故，離繫等執我有動作，不遍空故，作義雖同動義別故。有動作我，有所作者，是則常作，不應復作，我常有故，恒動常作，非今始作，不應復作。量云：汝動我未，作先應作，恒動作故，如今所作。若無動作我而有所作，不應道理。量云：汝我應無所作，許無動作故，如虛空等。

In the third refutation: regarding ‘a self that possesses movement, etc.’: for the Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika, the self has no movement because it pervades space; the Nirgrantha and others assert that the self has movement because it does not pervade space. Although the meaning of ‘agent’ is the same, the meaning of ‘movement’ is different. If a self that possesses movement performs actions, it would constantly act and should not act again; because the self is permanent, it would move perpetually and act constantly, rather than beginning to act now, and it should not act again. The syllogism is: Your moving self should have acted prior to acting; because it moves constantly; like what it does now. If a self without movement performs actions, this is illogical. The syllogism is: Your self should perform no action; because it is accepted to be devoid of movement; like space, etc.