成唯識論述記 2.395

2.395

述曰：子段第四、違同須異難。又滅能滅法，住能住法，體是相違，寧執同世？住既不違生，一種令法有，何容返異世？故應生、住同在現時，滅相體無令成過去，滅應與住世定不同。

The Commentary states: The fourth sub-clause is the objection that opposition requires difference while agreement requires identity. Furthermore, destruction can destroy phenomena, while abiding can maintain phenomena; their substances are mutually opposed, so why maintain that they belong to the same time? Since abiding does not oppose birth, both equally making the phenomenon existent, how can it allow them to be in different times instead? Therefore, birth and abiding should both be in the present time, while the substance of the mark of destruction is non-existent and thus belongs to the past; destruction must definitely differ from abiding in its time.