成唯識論述記 4.447

4.447

述曰：此體即是有漏思數，與欲數俱方是食體，餘相應思無希望相故。若希可愛境，此通未來及與現在。然《對法》等欲緣未來，現在無欲，即欲無減，不緣三世。今言希望，希望三世皆與其合，何妨此欲通緣三世？若緣過去，與念何異？念但追憶，而不希望與彼法合。若爾應念亦緣未來，念類無失，緣亦無爽。

The Commentary states: The essence of this [nutriment] is the sāsrava mental factor of volition (cetanā); only when it is conjoined with the mental factor of desire (chanda) is it the essence of nutriment, because volition conjoined with other factors lacks the mark of hoping. If it hopes for an agreeable object, this extends to both the future and the present. However, works like the Abhidharmasamuccaya state that desire takes the future as its object and there is no desire for the present, so that desire does not decrease and does not take all three times as its object. Now, in speaking of 'hoping', hope encompasses uniting with it across all three times; what is there to prevent this desire from taking all three times as its object? If it takes the past as its object, how does it differ from mindfulness (smṛti)? Mindfulness merely recollects without hoping to unite with that phenomenon. If that is so, mindfulness should also take the future as its object; yet the category of mindfulness has no such flaw, and its objective support is also without error.