成唯識論述記 1.525

1.525

述曰：無性體非有，無上不立無，有法體非無，何須別立有？彼若言有法雖非無，不自有故，須有有。亦應無法不自無，無法之外別立無，此責恒齊何方遣難。

The Commentary states: The entity of the nature of non-existence is not existent, yet atop non-existence one does not posit non-existence; the entity of existent dharmas is not non-existent, why must one separately posit existence? If they say that although existent dharmas are not non-existent, they are not existent of themselves and therefore require existence, then non-existent dharmas should likewise not be non-existent of themselves, and outside non-existent dharmas one must separately posit non-existence. These two reproaches are always equal; by what means can this objection be dispelled?