俱舍論疏 20.55

20.55

The Śāstra says: "They should also explain... is called 'already destroyed'": this explains the third line of the verse. If they claim that the substance of an entity exists just as the present does, what was it previously lacking, such that because it did not yet exist it was called 'not yet arisen'? And later, what is it lacking again, such that because it no longer exists it is called 'already destroyed'?