俱舍論記 20.50

20.50

「依彼所引至義已成立」者，經部師釋經說業有。依彼業所引現相續身中與果功能種子有故，密說過去能熏業為有。所熏業因，能與當果，名與果功能。若不爾者，彼過去業今現實有，應是現在，過去豈成？理必應爾。以經中說：眼根生位無所從來，顯無未來。眼根滅時無所造集，顯無過去。本無今有，既言本無，明無未來。有已還無，既言還無，明無過去。去、來眼根若實有者，經不應說本無等言。牒救破云：若謂經言眼根本無今有，有已還無，依現世說。此救非理。若現世性與彼眼根體別不同，可得說言依現世。說本無今有、有已還無，此現世性與彼眼根體無別故，何得說言依現世說本無今有、有已還無？以離有為無別世故。汝若許現世本無今有、有已還無，是則眼根去、來無體義已成立，以世與眼根體無別故，說世應亦說眼根故。又解：若謂經言眼根本無今有、有已還無，依現在世眼根說者，此救非理。若現在眼根體性，與彼過、未二世眼根體別不同，可得說言依現在世眼根體說本無今有、有已還無。此現在世眼根體性，與彼過、未二世眼根體無別故，何得說言依現在世眼根體說本無今有、有已還無？汝若許現世眼根本無今有、有已還無，是則眼根去、來無體義已成立。

Regarding "Based on what was induced by it [...] the meaning is already established": The Sautrāntika master explains the sūtra speaking of karma as existent: Based on the existence of the seed, which is the capacity to grant results within the present continuity of the body induced by that karma, the past perfuming karma is implicitly spoken of as existent. The perfumed karmic cause, being able to grant future results, is called the capacity to grant results. If it were not so, that past karma would exist really now in the present and should be present; how could it be established as past? By principle it must be so. For the sūtra says: At the moment the visual faculty is produced, it comes from nowhere—showing that there is no future. When the visual faculty ceases, it accumulates nowhere—showing that there is no past. "Originally non-existent, now it exists"—since it says "originally non-existent," it is clear there is no future. "Having existed, it returns to non-existence"—since it says "returns to non-existence," it is clear there is no past. If past and future visual faculties were real, the sūtra would not have said words such as "originally non-existent." Citing the defense to refute it: If you say that when the sūtra says the visual faculty is originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, this is spoken with reference to the present time; this defense is unreasonable. If the nature of the present time were different from the entity of that visual faculty, it could be said that it is spoken with reference to the present time: "originally non-existent, now it exists; having existed, it returns to non-existence." Since this nature of the present time is not distinct from the entity of that visual faculty, how can you say it is spoken with reference to the present time: "originally non-existent, now it exists; having existed, it returns to non-existence"? For apart from the conditioned there is no distinct time. If you accept that the present time is originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning that the past and future of the visual faculty lack an entity is already established, because time and the visual faculty are not distinct in entity, and when speaking of time one should also speak of the visual faculty. Another explanation: If you say that when the sūtra says the visual faculty is originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, this is spoken with reference to the visual faculty of the present time; this defense is unreasonable. If the intrinsic nature of the present visual faculty were different from the entity of the visual faculty in the two times of past and future, it could be said that it is spoken with reference to the entity of the present visual faculty: "originally non-existent, now it exists; having existed, it returns to non-existence." Since this intrinsic nature of the present visual faculty is not distinct from the entity of the visual faculty in the two times of past and future, how can you say it is spoken with reference to the entity of the present visual faculty: "originally non-existent, now it exists; having existed, it returns to non-existence"? If you accept that the present visual faculty is originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning that the past and future visual faculty lack an entity is already established.