成唯識論述記 2.136

2.136

述曰：量云：此動應生已即滅；因云「滅不待因」故；如心、心所，故知生已即滅。或云：動應剎那滅；有為法故，如鈴聲等，彼說鈴聲等是念念滅法故，雖彼自宗色等是有為非念念滅，非極成，故無不定過。彼復救言：如薩婆多法滅待滅相，不待外緣；我部色等滅待外緣及內相因，故不可以不待因為證，有隨一故。今復成之，汝滅應不待因；許是滅故；如無為滅。但總言滅不須分別體之與相，若體、若相皆應不待，此中總破相及非相，故有法之中，須言有為，不然即有少分相符極成之失。

The Commentary states: The syllogism is: This movement should perish as soon as it has arisen; the reason being 'because destruction does not depend on a cause'; like citta and caitasikas; hence one knows it perishes as soon as it has arisen. Or one says: Movement should be momentary destruction; because it is a conditioned dharma; like the sound of a bell and so on. For they say that the sound of a bell and so on are dharmas that perish moment by moment. Although in their own school form and so forth are conditioned yet not destroyed moment by moment, it is not commonly established, so there is no fault of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). They again rescue: Just as in the Sarvāstivāda, the destruction of a dharma depends on the characteristic of destruction (vyaya-lakṣaṇa) and not on external conditions; whereas in our school, the destruction of form and so forth depends on external conditions and the internal cause of the mark, hence one cannot use 'not depending on a cause' as proof, because it lacks universal acceptance for one party. Now we again establish it: Your destruction should not depend on a cause; because it is accepted to be destruction; like unconditioned cessation. One simply states 'destruction' in general without needing to differentiate substance from mark: whether substance or mark, neither should depend [on a cause]. Here, [the argument] refutes both mark and non-mark in general, so in the subject (dharmin), one must state 'conditioned'; otherwise there would be the fault of partially proving what is already accepted (siddha-sādhana).