俱舍論記 5.190

5.190

「汝今應說至何不於先用」者，此別破住。三相俱現，何故住先起用，非異非滅？若言力強，後何成劣俱遭異滅耶？若言住相非再用起如生相者，生應可然，引入現在不應重引。住不應然，已住可令永安住故。用應常起，不可例生令無再用。又誰障住用令暫有還無？若異、滅障者，異、滅力應強，何不於先起？

Regarding "You must now explain ... why does it not operate first?": This specifically refutes stationariness. Since the three characteristics are all present, why does stationariness initiate its operation first, and not alteration or cessation? If you say its power is strong, why does it later become weak and suffer alteration and cessation? If you say that the characteristic of stationariness does not initiate an operation a second time, just like the characteristic of arising, arising might indeed be so, for having introduced [a phenomenon] into the present, it should not introduce it again; but stationariness cannot be so, for having already caused it to abide, it could make it abide forever. Its operation should constantly arise; it cannot be analogized to arising as lacking a second operation. Furthermore, what obstructs the operation of stationariness, causing it to exist temporarily and then vanish? If alteration and cessation obstruct it, then the power of alteration and cessation should be stronger, so why do they not operate first?