成唯識論演祕 1.695

1.695

詳曰：彼論不說「所作非作」，然據理者有義可依。《疏》意通結前之所明常、無常，隨應得說所作、非作，不是偏結「無說」一句，既稱為無，所作何有，而見非耶？由彼論中作、非作例同於前常、無常義，故《疏》等復而言之也。

Critique: That treatise does not mention 'produced and unproduced,' but based on reasoning, there is a meaning to rely on. The Commentary's intention is to summarize universally the preceding explanation of permanence and impermanence, that according to circumstances one may speak of produced and unproduced; it is not specifically summarizing the single phrase 'there is no statement.' Since it is called non-existent, how could production exist, such that it should be criticized? Because in that treatise the examples of produced and unproduced are identical to the preceding meaning of permanence and impermanence, the Commentary and others repeat it.