俱舍論記 6.185

6.185

「若唯不生至豈不相違」者，說一切有部引經難。若唯於未來法不生是涅槃者，何故經言：信等五根，若見道修、若修道習、若無學道多修習，或初修、中習、後多所作。或修謂得修，習謂習修，多所作謂所治更遠。故《顯宗》云「若習、若修、若多所作，義差別者，為欲顯示習修、得修所治更遠，如其次第（已上論文）。」能令過未現世眾苦永斷，此永斷體即是涅槃。准此經文，通斷過、現，唯於未來有不生義，非於過現，豈不相違？

On "If merely non-arising [up to] would that not be contradictory?": the Sarvāstivādin cites a sūtra to object. If nirvāṇa is merely the non-arising of future dharmas, why does a sūtra state that the five faculties such as faith—if cultivated on the path of seeing, practiced on the path of cultivation, or frequently practiced on the path of the adept (aśaikṣa-mārga); or initially cultivated, practiced in the middle, and made much of in the end; or cultivation means acquisition-cultivation (prāptibhāvanā), practice means repetition-cultivation (āsevanābhāvanā), and making much of means placing the counteracted state further away; hence the Prakaraṇaśāsana (Xianzong) states: "The difference in meaning between 'if practiced, if cultivated, or if made much of' is to show repetition-cultivation, acquisition-cultivation, and placing the counteracted further away, in that order" (end of text)—can cause all sufferings of the past, future, and present to be perpetually severed, and this entity of perpetual severance is itself nirvāṇa? According to this sūtra text, severance applies generally to the past and present, whereas the meaning of non-arising applies solely to the future, not to the past or present; would that not be contradictory?