成唯識論述記 2.397

2.397

述曰：第二、總結非也，進為相違。體不得俱有，退不相返，用何不齊生？又進非理，應滅與住不同時，退非理。生、住例應同世，又進住、滅異世，便違自宗。退住、滅世同，復乖正理。別破異相如《俱舍》說，即前異不成，異前非一法，廣說如彼，今略不破。

The Commentary states: Second, he summarizes the error: moving forward is mutual opposition, and their substances cannot exist together; moving backward is non-opposition, so why do their functions not arise simultaneously? Furthermore, moving forward is unreasonable because destruction and abiding should not be at the same time; moving backward is unreasonable because birth and abiding should by analogy be in the same time. Furthermore, moving forward by having abiding and destruction in different times contradicts their own school; moving backward by having abiding and destruction in the same time contradicts correct reasoning. The separate refutation of the mark of decay is as stated in the Kośa: namely, that the preceding decay is unproven, and that what differs from the preceding is not a single phenomenon; this is explained in detail there and is now briefly not refuted.