成唯識論述記 2.407

2.407

述曰：此論主答，不表法現在，但表法後無。因明者，說無得為無因，故亦無過。若爾，即龜毛等應立為相。答：此不同彼，非後無故。本無今無，故非是相，即現在法於後無時，名之為滅，假言過去，過去體無，實非彼世。

The Commentary states: This is the reply of the author of the treatise. It does not express the phenomenon as present, but only expresses that the phenomenon is non-existent hereafter. Those skilled in hetuvidyā state that a non-existence can serve as a cause of non-existence, and therefore there is also no fault. If so, then a turtle's hair and the like should be established as marks. Reply: This is not like that, because they are not non-existent hereafter. Originally non-existent and currently non-existent, they are therefore not marks. It is precisely the present phenomenon at the time when it is non-existent hereafter that is termed destruction; it is provisionally said to be past, but the past is devoid of substance and is not truly that time.