瑜伽論記 13.394

13.394

前明老，後名住者，即生時即異時故，非由有住故方異，又令生厭故先說異住，濫常法故？

As for explaining decay before and designating abiding later, it is because the time of arising is itself the time of difference; it is not that difference occurs only due to the presence of abiding. Furthermore, is it because in order to engender revulsion, difference and abiding are explained first, or because abiding might be confused with permanent dharmas?