俱舍論記 9.128

9.128

「有餘師說至後際因故」者，敘異說。以愛、取、有是未來因，以因從果，除後際愚。《正理》破云「彼亦應說識乃至受，亦為除他前際愚惑。此五皆是前際果故，則無中際，便違契經。或彼應申差別所以。然不能說，故前為勝（已上論文）。」又助一難：若以因從果，過去二因從現在五果，應無前際。若以果從因，以未來二果從現三因，應無後際。若以現三因從未來二果、以現五果從過去二因，應無中際。以此故知前說為善。

[On] "Other masters say [...] up to: because they are the causes of the future": This recounts a divergent opinion. Because thirst, grasping, and existence are the causes of the future, subordinating cause to fruit eliminates delusions regarding the future. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: 'They should also say that consciousness up to feeling likewise serves to eliminate others' foolish delusions regarding the past. Since these five are all fruits of the past, there would be no present, which contradicts the sūtras. Or they ought to explain the reason for such a distinction, yet they are unable to do so; therefore the former [explanation] is superior' (thus far the treatise text). Another objection can also be raised: If causes are subordinated to fruits, past two causes being subordinated to present five fruits, there would be no past. If fruits are subordinated to causes, future two fruits being subordinated to present three causes, there would be no future. If present three causes are subordinated to future two fruits, and present five fruits are subordinated to past two causes, there would be no present. From this it is known that the former explanation is sound.