俱舍論記 5.185

5.185

「設許未來至應說現在相」者，縱破。設許未來生有作用，既起作用應名現在，如何成未來，應說未來相。法現在時生用已謝應名過去，如何成現在，應說現在相。《正理》十四救意：生相未來，但起功能，非是作用。現在起取果用，方是作用。作用必功能，功能非必有作用。由約作用立現在，未來唯起功能而非現在。俱舍師破云：汝立功能、作用，眼目異名。何故生用名功能，餘三名作用？又與《毘婆沙》評家相違故，彼說云「無有等無間緣，異時取果、異時與果。」准彼論意，入二無心定，即過去取、與。既過去取，應名現在。若正理師言：等無間緣現在頓取過去漸與者，此即還違《毘婆沙》評家義也。

Regarding "Even if it is granted that the future ... should be stated as the characteristic of the present": This is a concessionary refutation. Even if it is granted that future arising has an action, since it has initiated an action it should be called "present"; how can it be established as future? Its characteristic of being future should be stated! When the phenomenon is in the present, the operation of arising has already ceased, so it should be called "past"; how can it be established as present? Its characteristic of being present should be stated! The intention behind the defense in *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle fourteen, is: The characteristic of arising in the future only initiates a capacity (sāmarthya), not an action (kāritra). Only when it initiates the operation of grasping a fruit in the present is it an action. An action must be a capacity, but a capacity does not necessarily have an action. Because the present is established in reference to action, in the future it only initiates a capacity and is not present. The Kośa master refutes this, saying: Your establishing "capacity" and "action" are merely different names for the same thing. Why is the operation of arising called a capacity, while the other three are called actions? Furthermore, it contradicts the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, for that text states: "There is no equal-and-immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya) that grasps a fruit at one time and yields the fruit at a different time." According to the intent of that treatise, upon entering the two mindless absorptions, it grasps and yields in the past. Since it grasps in the past, it should be called present. If the follower of the *Nyāyānusāra* says that the equal-and-immediate condition grasps suddenly in the present and yields gradually in the past, this in turn contradicts the position of the arbiter of the *Mahāvibhāṣā*.