俱舍論記 9.149

9.149

「非離無明受至為證故知」者，上坐答。非離無明相應受能為愛緣，以阿羅漢受不生愛故。既受生愛，明知受同時必有無明。又非無倒觸能為染受緣，亦非離無明觸可成顛倒，阿羅漢觸非顛倒故。既顛倒無明觸能為染受緣，明知觸同時必有非理作意。此中意說觸時非理作意為緣能生受位無明，即顯無明從因生，亦顯非理作意觸中攝。由如是理為證故知。

Regarding "Feeling not separated from ignorance [...] known through the proof of": the Sthavira answers. Feeling not associated with ignorance cannot serve as a condition for craving, because an arhat's feeling does not give rise to craving. Since feeling gives rise to craving, one clearly knows that feeling must simultaneously have ignorance. Furthermore, inverted contact cannot serve as a condition for defiled feeling, nor can contact separated from ignorance become inverted, because an arhat's contact is not inverted. Since inverted contact with ignorance can serve as a condition for defiled feeling, one clearly knows that contact must simultaneously have inappropriate attention. The intent here is to state that inappropriate attention at the time of contact serves as a condition capable of producing ignorance at the stage of feeling, which directly manifests that ignorance arises from a cause, and also manifests that inappropriate attention is subsumed under contact. Known through the proof of such reasoning.