成唯識論述記 2.940

2.940

述曰：自下第四、釋相違也。若唯本有，此義難通，我兼本有，故無有妨。既不定說一切種子皆熏故生，汝寧全撥無本有種。若爾，何須論說內種定有熏習？

The Commentary states: Below is the fourth part: reconciling contradictions. If seeds were exclusively fundamentally existing, this meaning would be difficult to reconcile; since I include fundamentally existing ones, there is no obstacle. Since it is not definitively stated that all seeds are produced by perfuming, why do you completely reject fundamentally existing seeds? If so, why must the treatise say internal seeds definitely have perfuming?