俱舍論記 9.198

9.198

「經義若然至非此經義」者，論主破。經義若然，如汝所說果有因有滅，滅之言無，經中應作是說，依此有彼成無，何故乃言依此有彼有？此即責說異經。經中又應先說因生果生，後說果生因成無，如是次第方名善說。若異此者，欲辨緣起，依何次第先說因無？此即責不次第。故彼所釋，非此經義。

"If the meaning of the sūtra were like that... it is not the meaning of this sūtra": the master of the treatise refutes it. If the meaning of the sūtra were like that—as you claim, that when the effect exists, the cause ceases to exist, and cessation means nonexistence—then the sūtra ought to have spoken thus: "In dependence on this existing, that becomes nonexistent." Why does it instead say: "In dependence on this existing, that comes to be"? This rebukes him for speaking contrary to the sūtra. Furthermore, the sūtra ought to have said first that because the cause arises, the effect arises, and subsequently said that when the effect arises, the cause becomes nonexistent; only an order such as this could be called a well-spoken teaching. If it were otherwise, when one intends to explain dependent arising, according to what sequence would one first speak of the nonexistence of the cause? This rebukes him for being out of order. Therefore, his explanation is not the meaning of this sūtra.