俱舍論記 20.38

20.38

「又此作用至法名去來」者，釋用云何。又此作用，云何得說為去、來、今？此難意：汝說法體由作用故說三世別，作用未起名未來，作用已起名現在，作用已滅名過去。體由作用說三世別，用復由誰說去、來、今三世差別？豈作用中而得更立有餘作用，說此作用為去、來、今？若於用上復有餘用，用復有用便致無窮。若此作用更無作用，非去、來、今三世所攝，而復說言作用是有，則是無為，故應常非無。故不應言作用已滅法名過去，及此未有法名未來。

Regarding "Further, how could this activity [...] dharmas are called past and future": This explains "what of activity?" Moreover, how can this activity be spoken of as past, future, or present? The intent of this refutation is: You say that the distinct entity of a dharma is designated as differentiated into the three times by virtue of activity—prior to the arising of activity it is called future, having arisen it is called present, and having ceased it is called past. If the entity is differentiated into the three times on the basis of activity, on the basis of what then is activity differentiated into the three times of past, future, and present? Could one posit yet another activity within an activity, speaking of this activity as past, future, or present? If there were another activity over and above the activity, and activity again possessed an activity, this would lead to an infinite regress. If this activity has no further activity and is not subsumed within the three times of past, future, and present, yet you say that the activity exists, then it would be unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) and therefore must be eternally non-absent. Therefore, one should not say that when activity has ceased a dharma is called past, and when it does not yet exist it is called future.