瑜伽師地論略纂 13.60

13.60

論云「答：由能執持諸五識身所不行義，世尊假說為法」等者，若有體法，唯在現在，體是有故，名真實法。若過去、未來，體非實有，然能持自無體，令五識不行，令意識轉，假說名法。此豈是法故，令法處攝？前引經中，但有法量，而無處字，假說無為法，非謂法故便法處攝，而言遂有體。應立量云：如我所言，過未無法，亦應名法，有所持故，如現在法應成意緣；過未等無體之法，意識應緣，以是法故，如有體法。

Regarding the treatise's statement: 'Answer: Because it can uphold meanings not accessible to the assemblies of the five consciousnesses, the World-Honoured One provisionally speaks of it as a dharma,' and so forth: if a phenomenon has substantial reality, it exists only in the present; because its substance exists, it is called a real phenomenon. If past and future, their substance is not real existence; yet because they can uphold their own substancelessness, preventing the five consciousnesses from operating and causing the mental consciousness to turn, they are provisionally called dharmas. How could this, by virtue of being a dharma, cause it to be subsumed under the sense-sphere of dharmas? In the sūtra cited previously, there is only the measure of dharma, but no word for 'sphere' (āyatana); unconditioned dharmas are provisionally designated, but this does not mean that by being a dharma it is subsumed under the sense-sphere of dharmas, nor that it consequently possesses substantial reality. One should formulate the syllogism: Just as I state, past and future non-existent phenomena should also be called dharmas, because they uphold something, just like present phenomena; they should become objects of the mind. Past and future substanceless phenomena should be cognized by mental consciousness, because they are dharmas, just like phenomena possessing substantial reality.