瑜伽師地論略纂 3.46

3.46

In the third objection, regarding "a self with motion": for the Sāṃkhyas and Vaiśeṣikas, the self has no motion because it is all-pervading like space, as they hold it completely transcends bondage. [Others] hold that the self has motion because it does not pervade space; while the meaning of agency is the same, the meaning of motion differs. In "a self with motion performs actions": it would then act constantly and should not act anew. Because the self is permanent, it moves constantly and acts constantly; it is not acting newly now, and should not act anew. The syllogism is: "Your moving self should already have acted before acting; because it constantly moves and acts; just like what it acts upon now." "A self without motion performs actions" is unreasonable. The syllogism is: "A self without motion should have no agency; because it lacks motion; like space and so forth."