大般涅槃經義記 7.45

7.45

就後二中，初句約就未生之時難破有生，後句約就未生之時難破無生。初句云何？若未生時已有其生，如來可就說不生生；未生之時不得有生，如來云何說不生生？難意如是。然色等法起時名生，未起之時不得名生，故今反舉。「未生有生，云何於今乃名為生」以理難破，未生之時已先有生，云何於今現起之時方名為生？

Among the latter two: the first line refutes having arising with respect to the time when it has not yet arisen; the latter line refutes lacking arising with respect to the time when it has not yet arisen. What is the first line? If at the time when it has not yet arisen it already had arising, the Tathāgata could speak of it as "arising when not [yet] arisen"; but at the time when it has not yet arisen it cannot have arising, so how could the Tathāgata speak of "arising when not [yet] arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, dharmas such as matter are called "arisen" when they appear; when they have not yet appeared, they cannot be called "arisen"; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If when not [yet] arisen there is arising, why only now is it called arising?" refuting it through reason: if at the time when it has not yet arisen it already previously had arising, why only now, at the time of its present appearance, is it called arising?