俱舍論疏 20.44

20.44

論「是則過去至世相應雜」，經部難也。汝以取果、與果以為作用者，過去同類異熟因等，唯能與果不能取果；現在異熟因等，唯能取果不能與果，此即作用半有、半無，應名現在亦名過、未。一世之中有三世故，世雜亂也。《正理》救云「我宗說作用者謂是取果，取果之用定在現在，自餘力用並是功能。我宗然作用有無立其三世，非功能也。」今詳《正理》若作此釋，即有等無間緣現在取果，違《婆沙》過。

On the Śāstra's statement: "Then the past […] the characteristics of the time periods would be confused": this is an objection by the Sautrāntika. If you take grasping the fruit and giving the fruit as activity, past similar causes (sabhāgahetu) and maturation causes (vipākahetu) can only give the fruit and cannot grasp the fruit; present maturation causes and the like can only grasp the fruit and cannot give the fruit. In this case, activity is half-present and half-absent, so they should be called present and also called past or future. Because within a single time period there would be three time periods, the time periods would become confused. The Nyāyānusāra defends: "What our school calls activity refers to grasping the fruit; the activity of grasping the fruit is definitely in the present, while all other capacities are functions (kāritra/sāmarthya). Our school establishes the three time periods based on the presence or absence of activity, not of functions." Now, considering in detail: if the Nyāyānusāra provides this explanation, then an immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) would grasp its fruit in the present, which incurs the error of contradicting the Vibhāṣā.