俱舍論疏 9.222

9.222

論「若爾至無因常因故」，論主破也。但言此生故彼生，即具顯有因及因無常，何用前句此有彼有也。

The treatise says: "If so [then by saying 'because this arises, that arises' alone, both are already established] to [because it refutes causelessness and a permanent cause]." The treatise master refutes it. Merely saying "because this arises, that arises" completely shows both having a cause and the cause being impermanent; what need is there for the preceding phrase "because this exists, that exists"?