俱舍論疏 20.44

20.44

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.