瑜伽師地論略纂 3.29

3.29

If their characteristics are different, that their nature and characteristics are substantially existent does not stand to reason. This actually means that if the characteristics of the three times are different, existing apart from the present, then that the nature and characteristics of the past and future times are substantially existent does not stand to reason. The formal inference is: "The nature and characteristics of the past and future should not be substantially existent; because they are different from the present; like the horns of a hare." In the Mahāyāna, tathatā is not definitively different from the present, so there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika). Or the reason may be: "because they are not subsumed under the unconditioned in the present," with the thesis and example being the same as before.