瑜伽論記 2.232

2.232

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.