大般涅槃經義記 7.44

7.44

第二云何？若彼生相能得生他非生之法，如來可說為生不生；不能生他非生之法，云何得名為生不生？難意如是。然彼生相但能生於自家共起可生之法，不能生他無為無漏不可生法，故今反舉。「若能生他，以何因緣不生無漏」以理難破。若能生他，以何因緣不生無為無漏之法？不能生故，非生不生。

What is the second [objection]? If that mark of arising could produce other dharmas that do not arise, the Tathāgata could speak of it as "not arising when arisen"; but it cannot produce other dharmas that do not arise, so how could it be called "not arising when arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, that mark of arising can only produce co-arising dharmas of its own kind that are capable of arising, and cannot produce other unconditioned, uncontaminated dharmas that cannot arise; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If it can produce others, by what cause and condition does it not produce the uncontaminated?" refuting it through reason. If it could produce others, by what cause and condition would it not produce unconditioned, uncontaminated dharmas? Since it cannot produce them, it is not "not arising when arisen."