俱舍論疏 9.226

9.226

論「此欲辨生至而後說生」，經主破也。有二破：一與此經意不同，經說緣生本欲辦生，如何說住？二破次第失，應合先說其生，然後說住。如何破其次第，先說其住，而後說生？故知經意不爾。

The treatise says: "Here [the sūtra] wishes to elucidate arising [why explain abiding first] and only afterward speak of arising?" The author of the treatise refutes it. There are two refutations: first, it differs from the intention of this sūtra, for when the sūtra speaks of conditioned arising, it originally intended to elucidate arising, so why speak of abiding? Second, it refutes the fault in sequence: it should have properly spoken first of arising and only afterward of abiding. Why disrupt its sequence by speaking first of abiding and only afterward of arising? Therefore we know the sūtra's intention is not like that.