俱舍論記 2.36

2.36

「有雖無用至而非無因」者，前師又釋。論主若言諸根依處不由根生，要由見色聞聲等用根方生者，凡有根生非要有用，如處胞胎業定死者，雖無見色等用，其根亦生，故知根生非要有用。伏難云：此根無用，應非因生。為通伏難故作是言，有雖無用而非無因。此總出理。問：前解二根於彼有用，今言無用，豈不相違？解云：前言有用，有展轉疎用。今言無用，無親作用，非現嚴身、非現起說。或被難轉計。

Regarding the passage: "Although some exist without a use […] yet they are not without a cause," the previous master explains further. If the author of the treatise asserts that the physical bases of the faculties are not produced from the faculties, but rather that a faculty is produced only through functions such as seeing visible forms and hearing sounds, [we reply that] whenever a faculty is produced, it is not necessarily because it has a use. For example, for those who are destined by karma to die while in the womb, although they lack functions such as seeing forms, their faculties are nevertheless produced; hence we know that the production of faculties is not necessarily dependent on having a use. An implicit objection says: since these faculties have no use, they should not be produced from a cause. To resolve this implicit objection, he makes this statement: although some exist without a use, yet they are not without a cause. This provides the general principle. Question: The earlier explanation said the two faculties have a use there, but now it is said they have no use; is this not contradictory? Explanation: The earlier statement that they have a use referred to an indirect, mediate use. The present statement that they have no use means they have no direct, immediate function: they do not presently adorn the body, nor do they presently initiate speech. Or it is a modification of the position under the pressure of the objection.