大般涅槃經義記 7.46

7.46

What is the latter line? If at the time when it has not yet arisen it entirely lacked the nature of arising, the Tathāgata could speak of "not arising when not [yet] arisen"; but at the time when it has not yet arisen it already had the nature of arising, so why does the Buddha speak of "not arising when not [yet] arisen"? Such is the intention of the objection. However, when conditioned dharmas have not yet arisen previously, although they lack the occurrence of arising, they already have the nature of arising; therefore he now raises the contrary: "If when not [yet] arisen there is no arising, why is space not said to arise?" refuting it through reason: if conditioned dharmas fundamentally lacked the nature of arising and only later came to arise, space fundamentally also lacks the nature of arising, so why does it not arise? Since space does not arise, it may be that previously there was no arising; but conditioned [dharmas] can arise, which clearly shows that fundamentally there is arising. Because fundamentally there is arising, it is not "not arising when not [yet] arisen."