俱舍論疏 9.228

9.228

論「經義若然至非此經義」，有二破：一既由果有故因滅無者，經應言此有故彼無，何故經言此有彼有？二破云：應先言因生故果生，已後乃可說此有故因滅無。如是次第方名善說。若異此者欲辨緣起，依何次第先說因滅？故知所釋非此經義。

The treatise says: "If the meaning of the sūtra were like that [then the sūtra should have said: 'Because this exists, that does not exist'] to [it is not the meaning of this sūtra]." There are two refutations: first, since because the effect exists, the cause has ceased to exist, the sūtra should have said "because this exists, that does not exist"; why did the sūtra say "because this exists, that exists"? Second, he refutes: one should first say that because the cause arises, the effect arises, and only afterward say that because this exists, the cause ceases to exist. Only with such an order can it be called well-stated. If it were otherwise, when wishing to elucidate conditioned origination, by what sequence would one speak first of the cause's cessation? Therefore we know that what was explained is not the meaning of this sūtra.