俱舍論記 4.195

4.195

「若謂此得至理不成立」者，經部縱破。若謂得有作用作法生因，無為不生，應無有得。又若執得為法生因，如所得法，或時未得，或時已捨，或三界、九地往來轉易，或復離染。如是諸法彼現無得，後若起時當云何生？若言雖無法前得生，而有法俱生得為生因者，大生少生復何所作？又非情法既無有得，應定不生。又具縛異生煩惱未斷，等有九品煩惱生因。生因既等，下、中、上品煩惱現起差別應無。所以者何？得為生因，無差別故。既得無別，應不可言上品貪現行名貪行者，非中、下品。瞋等亦爾。今此難意：生因既等，不得現起三品不同，隨增說行。汝若救云：由餘因故，煩惱現起有差別者，即應由彼餘因諸法得生，得復何用？故執得用作法生因，理不成立。

Regarding 'If one claims that this acquisition... the reasoning is not established': the Sautrāntika presents a concessive refutation. If you say that acquisition has the function of acting as a cause for the arising of dharmas, then since unconditioned [dharmas] do not arise, they should have no acquisition. Furthermore, if you hold that acquisition is the cause for the arising of a dharma: for a dharma to be acquired, at certain times it has not yet been acquired, or at certain times it has already been abandoned, or there is shifting across the three realms and nine stages, or again there is separation from defilement. Since for such dharmas there is presently no acquisition in him, when they arise later, how could they arise? If you say that although there is no acquisition preceding the dharma to cause its arising, an acquisition arising simultaneously with the dharma serves as the cause of its arising, then what do the major and minor arising do? Furthermore, since inanimate dharmas have no acquisition, they definitely should not arise. Moreover, an ordinary person with full fetters has not severed defilements, and possesses equally the causes for the arising of nine grades of defilements. Since the causes for their arising are equal, there should be no distinction in the actual manifest arising of inferior, middling, and superior defilements. Why is this? Because acquisition acts as the cause of arising without distinction. Since acquisition has no distinction, one could not say that someone in whom superior greed manifests is called 'one of greedy temperament', and not middling or inferior [greed]. The same applies to anger and so on. The point of this objection is: since the causes for arising are equal, there cannot be different manifest arisings of the three grades such that a temperament is designated according to what is predominant. If you salvage your view by saying, 'Due to other causes, the manifest arising of defilements has distinctions,' then dharmas should arise by those other causes—what further use is acquisition? Therefore, the claim that the function of acquisition acts as the cause for the arising of dharmas is logically unestablished.