俱舍論疏 6.247

6.247

論「又若別有至名為滅故」，經部更以違第六轉聲彼事滅破。如說色滅，唯遮色有，非別有物。言煩惱滅，故知唯煩惱滅，無別實物。如立擇滅無為，與其煩惱非是因果，不定相屬，如何得稱煩惱之滅？故知言煩惱滅，但遮煩惱有，名言為滅。

[When] the treatise [states]: "Moreover, if there were a separate ... because it is called cessation," the Sautrāntika further refutes them by showing that it contradicts the genitive case in 'the cessation of that matter': "Just as saying 'the cessation of form' merely negates the existence of form and is not a separate entity, so when one says 'the cessation of defilements,' one knows that it is merely the cessation of defilements without any separate, real entity. If you establish unconditioned cessation through deliberation, it is neither the cause nor the effect of those defilements, nor is it definitively connected to them; how then could it be called 'the cessation of defilements'? Therefore, we know that when it is called 'the cessation of defilements,' it merely negates the existence of defilements, and is nominally spoken of as cessation."