俱舍論記 20.43

20.43

「然彼所說至此真自在作」者，此下廣破。經部牒前毘婆沙師立義徵破。然彼前文所說，恒與有為諸相合故行非常者，此但有虛言，三世體實有，生滅理無故。汝許體恒三世實有，說性非常，如是義言所未曾有。依如是義故有頌言。許三世法其體恒有，而說三世其性非常，性之與體眼目異名、復無有別，此真是彼自在天作。外道計自在天須作即作，論主調彼，須作即作，同彼自在，故言此真自在作。

Regarding "Yet what they state [...] this is truly the work of Īśvara": Below this is the extensive refutation. The Sautrāntika cites the previous thesis set up by the Vaibhāṣikas and interrogates it to refute it. As for what was stated earlier by them—that because it is constantly conjoined with the conditioned characteristics, the conditioned formation is impermanent—this is merely empty words; since the entities in the three times really exist, the principle of arising and cessation is impossible. That you allow the entity to exist really and constantly across the three times, yet say that its nature is impermanent—such a doctrinal statement is unprecedented. Based on this meaning, there is a verse: "They allow that the dharmas of the three times have entities that constantly exist, / yet say that in the three times their nature is impermanent. / Nature and entity are different names for the same referent and have no distinction; / this is truly the work of that Lord Īśvara." The non-Buddhists maintain that whatever Lord Īśvara wishes to make, he makes; the author of the śāstra teases them: wanting to make whatever you wish to make is identical to that Īśvara, hence he says "this is truly the work of Īśvara."