成唯識論了義燈 3.38

3.38

[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?