俱舍論疏 9.201

9.201

論「故說頌言至彼應先說故」，第二頌，此進退破。至緣若起，先行法非有，不應理。法既非有，如何至緣？若俱，便壞已者。若至緣時，即是起時。則不應言由此有法至於緣已。言已者，必應合在先說，不合俱時。此是敘聲論師破也。

The treatise says: "Therefore it is said in verse: [If having reached conditions, they arise, the preceding action does not exist] to [it should have been stated prior]." The second part is the verses; this refutes both horns of the dilemma. If, having reached conditions, it arises, the preceding action does not exist, which is untenable: since the dharma does not yet exist, how could it reach conditions? If they are simultaneous, then the past participle [kṛtvā, 'having...'] is destroyed: if the time of reaching conditions is the very time of arising, then one should not say "owing to this, existing phenomena, *having reached* conditions." Stating "having [reached]" must necessarily apply to what is prior, and does not fit what is simultaneous. This recounts the refutation by the grammarian.