成唯識論了義燈 3.38

3.38

《論》：無為非世等。本云汝宗無為，應非無為，是無常法，許有用故，如眼、耳等。《要集》云：有違自宗，今謂非過，宗言汝故。又云若取他宗，因有不定，為如識變，無為有作用，故是無為耶？此亦不爾。識變無為，假名無為，非實無為。前言汝宗無為，即實無為，故無不定。量既無過，何故不得立量以破？云但理破耶？

[Regarding] the text of the Śāstra: “The unconditioned is not temporal…,” the original text says: “The unconditioned of your school should be non-unconditioned, being an impermanent dharma; because you accept that it has function; like the eye, ear, etc.” The Yaoji says: “This contradicts one's own thesis.” Now I say this is not a fallacy, because the thesis says ‘your [unconditioned]’. It also says that if one adopts the other school, the reason is inconclusive: Is it like the unconditioned transformed by consciousness, which has function, and therefore is unconditioned? This too is not so. The unconditioned transformed by consciousness is nominally termed unconditioned, not real unconditioned. The earlier statement ‘your school's unconditioned’ refers precisely to the real unconditioned, so there is no inconclusiveness. Since the syllogism is without fault, why should one not establish the syllogism to refute it, and say it is merely a logical refutation without a formal proof?