俱舍論記 6.63

6.63

「彼於所難至未至已生」者，論主非第二師解。彼於所難非為善釋，以未來法正生位前非同類因，後至生相方成因故。還是有時非因，何得答言無時非因？又引《發智》為難，如同類因與等無間緣俱至現在方成。何故緣答未至已生，因答無時非因？亦應齊等，何乃不同？

"Their explanation of the objection... until it has already arisen": the author rejects the second master's explanation. Their explanation of the objection is not a good one, because a future phenomenon is not a cause of the same type before the state of arising, and only becomes a cause after reaching the characteristic of arising. It is still a case of being at some times not a cause; how could it be answered that "at no time is it not a cause"? Furthermore, citing the Jñānaprasthāna as an objection: just as the cause of the same type and the immediately contiguous condition (samanantara-pratyaya) are both accomplished only upon reaching the present, why did it answer regarding the condition, "not until it has already arisen," while answering regarding the cause, "at no time is it not a cause"? They ought to be equivalent; why are they different?