成唯識論述記 5.638

5.638

述曰：彼言去、來有者，不然；去、來理無故；如薩婆多等，前已破訖。經部等義，去、來無體。若過、未無體，如何言思量？雙問二家，如何思量？設前有體，亦已無用；後無體故，其用理無，用體既無，如何名意？

The Commentary states: Their statement that the past and future exist is incorrect, because logically the past and future do not exist, as with the Sarvāstivādins and others who were already refuted earlier. According to the tenets of the Sautrāntikas and others, past and future have no real entity. If the past and future have no real entity, how can they be said to ratiocinate? We question both schools together: how could they ratiocinate? Even if the former had an entity, it has already lost its function; and since the latter lacks an entity, its function logically does not exist. Since both function and entity are absent, how can it be called manas?