俱舍論記 26.71

26.71

「既不能通至名非時修」者，經部師破。既不能通所違經說，所辨八義不依經故理亦不成。又若沈相應心即掉相應心者，經不應說：若於爾時心沈，恐沈修安、定、捨三覺支者名非時修，修擇、進、喜名依時修。若於爾時心掉，恐掉修擇、進、喜名非時修，修安、定、捨名依時修。此經意說，心沈須策、心掉須抑。沈心、掉心經既別說，明知沈、掉起不俱時，如何可言沈心即掉心。

Regarding [the text from] “Since you cannot resolve” up to “is called untimely cultivation”: this is the Sautrāntika master's refutation. Since you cannot resolve the contradiction with what is stated in the sūtra, the eight meanings you distinguish are not based on the sūtra, and therefore their principle is also unproven. Furthermore, if a mind associated with depression is identical to a mind associated with restlessness, the sūtra would not say: if at that time the mind is depressed, cultivating the three limbs of awakening—tranquility, concentration, and equanimity—out of fear of depression is called untimely cultivation, while cultivating investigation [of dharmas], energy, and joy is called timely cultivation; if at that time the mind is restless, cultivating investigation, energy, and joy out of fear of restlessness is called untimely cultivation, while cultivating tranquility, concentration, and equanimity is called timely cultivation. The intention of this sūtra is that when the mind is depressed it must be stimulated, and when the mind is restless it must be subdued. Since the sūtra speaks separately of the depressed mind and the restless mind, we clearly know that depression and restlessness do not arise at the same time; how could one say that the depressed mind is identical to the restless mind?