俱舍論記 7.67

7.67

「是則應成至無差別故」者，破。若由欲生，便非一因，違宗之過。或前後差別欲應一時頓生，立量云：前法欲生位後欲應生，以與前欲因無別故，猶如前欲。

"Then it would follow... up to ...because there is no difference" is the refutation. If they arise due to desire, then it is not a single cause, which is the fault of contradicting their own doctrine. Or the distinct desires of earlier and later should arise all at once simultaneously. To formulate the syllogism: At the phase when the desire for the preceding dharma arises, the subsequent desire should arise, because its cause is not different from that of the preceding desire, just like the preceding desire.