成唯識論演祕 2.184

2.184

詳曰：住不更生，待因之因於住得轉，何理不得成不定耶？若住非滅非不定者，夫不定者唯對宗法，滅既有法，住雖非滅，何廢不定？由斯住相攝入宗中，或因中簡即無過矣。

Detailed analysis says: abiding does not arise again; the reason of 'depending on a cause' applies to abiding, so by what principle does it not constitute inconclusiveness? If abiding is not cessation and thus not inconclusive: whenever there is inconclusiveness, it is only in relation to the property of the thesis (sādhya-dharma); since cessation is the subject (dharmin), although abiding is not cessation, why would that prevent inconclusiveness? For this reason, if the characteristic of abiding is subsumed into the thesis, or qualified in the reason, there will be no fault.