俱舍論記 26.31

26.31

「迦濕彌羅至二智差別」者，答。說一切有部正義，從盡、無生二智觀出，後得有漏智中，作如是知，我已知苦等。非無漏觀作如是知，故無有失。由此後得二智果別故，表前觀中二智因差別。由二因引是彼士用果，此即以果別因。若無餘心隔，應盡智無間即有我已知苦等解，無生智無間即有不應更知等解。然為無學正見等隔，故後方起。

Regarding "The Kaśmīra [masters say] ... the distinction between the two knowledges": this is the answer. The orthodox doctrine of the Sarvāstivāda is: emerging from the contemplation of the two knowledges of exhaustion and non-origination, within the subsequently attained defiled knowledge, one has such knowing as: "I have known suffering," and so forth. It is not that within undefiled contemplation one has such knowing; therefore, there is no fault. Because of the difference in the results of these two subsequently attained knowledges, it indicates the difference in the causes of the two knowledges in the preceding contemplation. Being induced by the two causes, they are their puruṣakāra-phala; this is differentiating the causes by means of the results. If there were no intervening minds, immediately following the knowledge of exhaustion there should be the understanding: "I have known suffering," and so forth; and immediately following the knowledge of non-origination there should be the understanding: "It should not be known again," and so forth. However, because they are intervened by the right view of an aśaikṣa and so forth, they arise only later.