俱舍論記 9.185

9.185

「又聲論師至釋緣起義」者，經部師破，或說一切有部破。又聲論師妄所安立真實作者、真實作用，各體不同，理實不成。汝計有體實法即是作者，離體之起即是作用，作者、作用真實可得。我今觀察，非於此中見有真實作者異起作用，各體不同真實可得。若依佛法，離體之外無別實用，即於體上說有作用。於此諸法義言此是作者、此是作用，於世俗理亦無有謬。此至緣起義即是經中所說，依此無明等有，彼行等有，此無明等生故，彼行等生，故應引彼經釋緣起義。破訖正釋。又解：此緣起義即是經中所說，依此無明等有，彼行等有。此無明等生，故彼行等生。故應引彼釋緣起義無別作者。若於相續前因後果，假說作者、假說作用，亦無有妨。故前文云「法假謂何？依此有彼有，此生故彼生。」廣說緣起。此即舉說同經引經證假。

Regarding "Furthermore, grammarians … to explain the meaning of dependent origination": this is a refutation by the Sautrāntika master, or a refutation by the Sarvāstivādin. Furthermore, that real agent and real activity, each possessing a different substance, which the grammarians falsely establish, actually cannot be established in reason. You posit that a substantial real dharma is the agent, and the arising apart from the substance is the activity, such that the agent and the activity are truly obtain[able]. Now, as I observe, it is not seen here that there is a real agent distinct from the activity of arising, nor that their having different substances is truly obtain[able]. According to the Buddhadharma, there is no distinct real activity apart from the substance; it is precisely upon the substance that an activity is said to exist. Regarding these dharmas, to say by designation that this is the agent and this is the activity is also not erroneous according to conventional principles. This meaning of reaching the conditions and arising is precisely what is stated in the sūtra: "Depending on the existence of this [ignorance], that [volitional formation] exists; because of the arising of this [ignorance], that [volitional formation] arises." Therefore, one should cite that sūtra to explain the meaning of dependent origination. Having refuted [the opponent, the text] gives the correct explanation. Another explanation states: This meaning of dependent origination is precisely what is stated in the sūtra: "Depending on the existence of this, that exists; because of the arising of this, that arises." Therefore, one should cite that [sūtra] to explain that the meaning of dependent origination has no separate agent. If, with respect to earlier causes and later results in a continuum, an agent is metaphorically posited and an activity is metaphorically posited, there is no impediment either. Therefore, the preceding text says: "What is conceptual imputation of dharmas? Depending on this, that exists; because of the arising of this, that arises," elaborately explaining dependent origination. This cites and mentions the same sūtra, adducing the sūtra to prove conceptual imputation.