俱舍論疏 9.126

9.126

論「有餘師說至後際因故」，述異說也。《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。」

The Śāstra states: "Other masters say... up to 'because they are the causes of the posterior limit'": this recounts a divergent explanation. The Nyāyānusāra refutes it, saying: 'They should also say that consciousness up to feeling are also meant to eliminate others' delusion regarding the prior limit, because these five are all results of the prior limit. Then there would be no middle limit, which contradicts the sūtra. Or, they should state the reason for the distinction, yet they are unable to do so; therefore, the former explanation is superior.'