成唯識論述記 2.960

2.960

述曰：彼若救言：法爾力故，障有可害、不可害者。即難彼云：無漏法種，寧不許有法爾種子姓各別也。若彼復言：有漏曾熏故，法爾障有可害、不可害；無漏未曾熏故，種無法爾，此「唯有」言都無有理。既言有漏由熏，如何復言「法爾」？無漏既無法爾，應不說言「由熏」。

The Commentary states: If they rescue their position by saying, "By force of nature (dharmatā), obstacles are divided into those that can be destroyed and those that cannot," then one challenges them, saying: "Why do you not allow that seeds of untainted dharmas likewise naturally have their respective distinct lineages?" If they further say, "Because tainted dharmas have previously perfumed, by nature obstacles can be destroyed or cannot be destroyed, whereas untainted dharmas have never been perfumed, so seeds cannot be natural," this assertion of 'only [by perfuming]' is utterly devoid of reason. Having said that tainted dharmas are due to perfuming, how can you then say they are 'natural'? And since untainted dharmas are said not to be natural, you should not speak of them as being 'due to perfuming.'