俱舍論頌疏論本 20.25

20.25

有誰未生滅者，更以理破之。若說過、未如現實有，應俱名現。誰未已生名為未來？誰復已滅名為過去？故不許法本無今有、有已還無，則三世義皆不成立。又經部云：汝薩婆多許體恒有，而說性非常，如是義言所未曾有。依如是義，故有頌曰：「許法體恒有，而說性非常，性體復無別，此真自在作（此頌經部調有宗也，言如外道說自在天自作諸世間，須作即作也）。」

As for "What [entity] is it that has not yet arisen or has ceased?": they further refute it with reason. If one says that past and future are real existents like the present, they should all be called present. What entity not having arisen is called future? What entity having ceased is called past? Therefore, if you do not accept that a dharma previously did not exist and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence, then the meaning of the three time-periods cannot be established at all. Furthermore, the Sautrāntikas say: You Sarvāstivādins accept that the entity is constant, yet you say that its nature is impermanent; such an assertion is unprecedented. Based on such a meaning, there is a verse that says: "They accept that the entity of a dharma is constant, / Yet say its nature is impermanent; / Furthermore, the nature and the entity are without difference— / This is truly the work of Īśvara!" (This verse is the Sautrāntika mocking the Sarvāstivāda, meaning that just as tīrthikas say that Lord Īśvara creates all the worlds by himself, doing whatever he needs to do whenever he pleases).