俱舍論記 20.42

20.42

「彼復應說至皆不成立」者，經部破，釋第三句。彼復應說：若如現在法體實有，去、來亦然，誰未已生名為未來？誰復已滅名為過去？謂有為法體實三世恒有，如何可得成未已生名未來，已滅名過去？先在未來有何所闕？彼未有故名未已生。後在過去復闕何法？彼已無故名為已滅。故不許法體本無今有、有已還無，則三世義皆不成立。若三世義不成立者，應一切種諸有為法皆不成立。

Regarding "They should further state [...] none are established": This is the Sautrāntika refutation, explaining the third line [of the verse]. They should further state: If, just as the entity of a dharma is real in the present, it is likewise so in the past and future, then who is not yet produced and called future? And who has already ceased and is called past? That is to say, if the entity of a conditioned dharma truly exists constantly throughout the three times, how could it be made out to be not yet produced and called future, or already ceased and called past? What is it lacking earlier in the future such that, being absent then, it is called not yet produced? And what dharma is it lacking later in the past such that, being already gone then, it is called already ceased? Therefore, if you do not accept that the entity of a dharma is originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning of the three times is entirely unestablished. And if the meaning of the three times is unestablished, then conditioned dharmas of all kinds must be entirely unestablished.