瑜伽論記 6.281

6.281

初段，疑蓋中，我於過去為曾有？為曾無等者，此中所為初言不，如理思則三世皆舉，下疑三世有及有因緣三世皆舉。唯疑有無中，唯於過去不言現未有何意也。基公述云：如廣論有略影顯之，又前後皆舉三世此中唯舉過去，影解現在未來，論略故不說。又現在現有不可疑有無，未來法不定有無難測。又今謂得正見未來果斷故不須疑，過去不同現未故偏說疑有無，其實通三世，問我於過去為曾何有云何有曾者，此中二思，一思過去曾有何法，二亦過去之法從而來，即初問法體後問法因，過去既然，二世准此，知有為有有法也，知無為無無我也。

In the first section, on the hindrance of doubt, regarding 'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist?', and so forth: here, the initial mention of improper attention adduces all three time periods, and below, doubt about existence in the three times and their causes also adduces all three time periods. Why is it that in doubt about existence and nonexistence, it only mentions the past and does not mention the present and future? Master Ji explains: 'As in extensive treatises, it implicitly indicates them in brief; also, both before and after it adduces the three time periods, but here it only adduces the past to implicitly explain the present and future, not mentioning them due to the treatise's brevity. Furthermore, what is present now cannot be doubted regarding its existence or nonexistence, whereas future phenomena are not fixed and their existence or nonexistence is difficult to surmise. Furthermore, I now say that because right view has been attained, the future fruit is severed, so there is no need to doubt it; since the past differs from the present and future, it specifically speaks of doubting existence or nonexistence, though in reality it applies to all three time periods. In asking 'What was I in the past? How was I in the past?', there are two considerations here: first, considering what phenomenon existed in the past; second, considering where that past phenomenon came from. That is, the first asks about the substance of the phenomenon, and the second asks about the cause of the phenomenon. If this is so for the past, the other two times should be understood accordingly: knowing what exists as existing is the phenomenon that exists; knowing what does not exist as not existing is selflessness.'