One might then think, ‘Even though they are not simultaneous, there is still simultaneity with respect to the processes.’ But this too is unacceptable, since you would not accept that there is a separation between phenomena and their processes. So, furthermore,

Arising with no subject doesn’t make much sense. (6.19)

Since the sprout, the subject in the process of production, is in the future, it does not exist. Without the existence of that, the unsupported cannot exist; how can that which does not exist be simultaneous with the cessation? Hence, it is certainly illogical that the processes can be simultaneous. As stated:

If an unproduced entity existed somewhere,
It could be under production.
But such an entity being nonexistent,
How can there be production?¹

This means that, if the unproduced entity we call ‘sprout’ were to exist somewhere before being produced, it could be said to have production, but one cannot establish this in any way prior to the actual production, because it has as yet not been produced. Hence, since the entity that supports the process of production does not exist before its production, it cannot be endowed with it; so, ‘How is there production?’ Since the word that (tasmin) is referring to the entity (bhāve), they are in case-agreement; entity (bhāve) is in the seventh case, and nonexistent (asati) is a further specification of the entity. The word how (kim) is to be joined with be produced (utpadyate). Hence, the meaning becomes, ‘When that entity is a nonexistent, how can there be production? Not even the slightest thing is being produced.’