瑜伽論記 13.331

13.331

神通三世者，此即禪定他心通，若凡夫及聖緣過去為境，以起有功能似若于時現，若起有強弱緣境有寬狹，此與前別，或執心非量境，若不執心比度而知，或以現過曾見比未來當此事生，或以現在為比比曾有此事比量而知，若神通及禪定此皆證解，雖心上功能而生證定，故與前別，論文過去中應有果，現在又準未來因有故，此中但論因故其相已捨，不論果故不言現有。又顯過未無體，約現法云過去，不言果有言自性故言已無，顯未來生相亦無體，未來說因現有，於現在因上有當生果義顯於現在法亦立，明知過去因相體已滅，於現在果有此因曾有非今正有，即於現法而立過去，故此顯文同。

Regarding the three times of supernormal knowledge: this refers to dhyāna and the supernormal knowledge of knowing others' minds (paracittajñāna). When ordinary beings and noble ones take the past as their object, through their arising capacity, it appears as though present at that time. If in their arising there is strength and weakness, their cognized objects have broadness and narrowness; this differs from the previous one. Or, clinging minds are not valid cognitions of the object; if it is an unclinging mind, it knows by inference, either by inferring from what was previously seen in the present or past that this matter will arise in the future, or by taking the present as an inference to infer that this matter previously existed, knowing it through inference. In the case of supernormal knowledge and dhyāna, these are both realized understanding; although arising from capacities upon the mind, they realize concentration, and hence differ from the previous one. The text of the treatise states that in the past there should be a fruit, and the present again is modeled on the presence of the future cause; hence herein only the cause is discussed, so its marks are already abandoned; the fruit is not discussed, so it is not said to be presently existing. Furthermore, to reveal that the past and future lack real substance, past is spoken of with respect to present dharmas; it is not said that the fruit exists, but its intrinsic nature is mentioned, hence it is said to already be non-existent. To reveal that the marks of arising in the future also lack real substance, the future is said to be causes presently existing; upon the present cause there is the sense of a fruit that will arise, revealing that it is also established upon present dharmas. Clearly one knows that the substance of the past cause-mark has already perished; upon the present fruit there is this cause that previously existed, not that it presently exists right now. That is, the past is established upon present dharmas; thus the text here clearly agrees.