俱舍論記 9.176

9.176

謂「若意說至無相應理」者，論主答。謂若如我意說佛出不出行等果法常緣無明等因起，非緣餘法起，若無明斷，行即無緣，故言常住。經言法性常住者，顯因果決定義，如是意說理則可然。若謂如汝意說有別真實法體名為緣起湛然常住，此別意說，理則不然。彼部非理。所以者何？正出過言：生之與起眼目異名，俱有為相。非別無為常住法為無常相可應正理，彼說無為是緣起故。又起果用必應依彼起因者立，此無為常住法、彼無明等無常法，一常、一無常，何相關預，而說此常住法依彼無明等而立，為彼無明等緣起？又無明等名為緣起，汝謂目常，如是緣起句義與常無相違理。

Regarding "if the intended meaning is that ... there is no reasonable principle of conformity": the author of the treatise answers. That is to say, if, according to my intended meaning, it is said that whether Buddhas appear or do not appear, effect-dharmas such as formations always arise dependent on causes such as ignorance, and do not arise dependent on other dharmas—and if ignorance is severed, formations have no conditions—therefore it is said to be "permanently abiding." When the sūtra says that "the dharmatā is permanently abiding," this reveals the meaning of the fixed determination of cause and effect; if the intended meaning is like this, in principle it is acceptable. But if, according to your intended meaning, it is said that there is a distinct, real entity called dependent origination that is eternally and permanently abiding, then with this distinct intended meaning, in principle it is not so. That school is unreasonable. Why is this? To directly point out the fault: "arising" and "originating" are different names for the same referent, both being characteristics of the conditioned. It does not accord with correct reasoning for a distinct, unconditioned, permanently abiding dharma to serve as a characteristic of the impermanent, since they say that the unconditioned is dependent origination. Furthermore, the function of originating an effect must be established based upon that which is the originating cause. As for this unconditioned, permanently abiding dharma and those impermanent dharmas like ignorance, one is permanent and one is impermanent; what connection do they have with each other that this permanently abiding dharma is said to be established based upon that ignorance and so forth, serving as the dependent origination of that ignorance and so forth? Furthermore, ignorance and the like are termed dependent origination; you claim that it refers to the permanent, but how can the phrase-meaning of dependent origination be free of contradiction with the permanent?