俱舍論疏 9.200

9.200

論「依一作者至可有作用」，出理不應然所以也。就中有二：一長行、二頌結。此是長行。意云：於一法上明前後二用，於先用上可言其己，如有一人浴已方食。既法起先無有小行法在起先有，即正起時方有行法，如何釋言由此有法至於緣已和合升起是緣起義。論主取經部義意，假作聲論師破也。

The treatise says: "[Depending on a single agent] to [could have action]." This gives the reason why it is logically untenable. Within this, there are two parts: first, prose; second, concluding verses. This is the prose. The meaning is: to clarify two sequential actions upon a single entity, the past participle [kṛtvā, 'having done'] can only be stated of the prior action, as when a person eats only after having bathed. Since prior to the arising of a dharma there is no slight action of going that exists prior to arising, and only at the very time of arising is there the action of going, how can one explain that "owing to this, existing phenomena, having reached conditions, gather together and arise is the meaning of conditioned origination"? Taking the intention of the Sautrāntika doctrine, the treatise master hypothetically plays the role of a grammarian to refute it.