俱舍論記 20.56

20.56

「若謂去來至理亦自成」者，經部縱救牒破。汝說一切有部，若謂過去、未來極微散亂名有，非聚集故而非現在。理亦不然。取彼過、未極微相時，非散亂故，應非過、未。又若救言：彼過、未色有體同現，唯有極微散亂為異。則極微色三世不改，其體應常。又色唯應極微聚集名為現在，極微散亂名為過、未，竟無少分可名生滅。若執微常，是則遵崇邪命者論即勝論師，棄背善逝所說契經。引經可知。又色微聚散可名過、未，非受、想等極微集成，如何可言去、來散亂？然於受等追憶過去，亦如現在未滅時相；逆觀未來，亦如現在已生時相。過、未二世若如現有，體應是常。若體現無，還應許有緣無境識。理亦自成，同我經部。

Regarding "If it is said that the past and future [...] the principle is also established by itself": The Sautrāntika grants the defense hypothetically and cites it to refute it. You Sarvāstivādin, if you say that subtle atoms (paramāṇu) in the past and future being scattered is what is called existent, and because they are not aggregated they are not present: the principle is also not so. When apprehending the characteristics of those past and future subtle atoms, because they are not scattered, they should not be past or future. Furthermore, if you defend: "Those past and future forms have entities identical to the present, differing only in the scattering of subtle atoms," then since subtle atomic form is unaltered across the three times, its entity should be permanent. Moreover, form should only be called present when subtle atoms are aggregated, and called past or future when subtle atoms are scattered, with not the slightest bit of anything that could be called arising and cessation. If you cling to the permanence of atoms, you are following the treatises of the Ājīvikas—that is, the Vaiśeṣikas—and turning your back on the sūtras spoken by the Sugata. Citing the sūtra is understandable. Furthermore, the aggregation and scattering of subtle atoms of form can be called past or future, but feeling, conception, and so on are not aggregated from subtle atoms; how could they be said to be scattered in the past and future? Yet in recollecting the past regarding feeling and so on, it is like the characteristics of when they had not yet ceased in the present; looking forward to the future, it is also like the characteristics of when they have already arisen in the present. If the two times of past and future exist like the present, their entities should be permanent. If their entities are non-existent in the present, you must once again accept that there is a consciousness apprehending a non-existent object. The principle is also established by itself, in agreement with our Sautrāntika.