俱舍論疏 6.254

6.254

論「我等見此至依此無生」，經部破也。經言眾苦不生，此之不生屬於眾苦，即是苦之不生，屬主之聲有其功力。經言眾苦不生，汝言不是眾苦不生，是別實體擇滅不生。此經證汝擇滅不生第七轉聲都無功力。經說不生何意？知是說滅不生，非苦不生。

On the Śāstra's statement, "We see this… it is based on this [cessation] that there is non-arising": This is the Sautrāntika's refutation. The sūtra states that manifold sufferings do not arise; this non-arising belongs to the manifold sufferings, meaning it is the non-arising of suffering, where the force of the genitive case applies. The sūtra says manifold sufferings do not arise, yet you claim it is not that manifold sufferings do not arise, but that an analytically acquired cessation as a distinct real entity does not arise. This sūtra cited as your proof that an analytically acquired cessation does not arise renders the locative seventh case entirely without grammatical force. When the sūtra speaks of non-arising, with what intention does it do so? How can you know that it speaks of cessation as non-arising, rather than suffering as non-arising?