廣弘明集 18.104

18.104

雅論大通甚佳。去來定無此作不通。佛說色陰。三世和合總名為色。五陰皆爾。又云。從心生心。如從穀生穀。以是故知。必有過去無無因之咎。又云。六識之意識。依已滅之意為本而生意識。又正見名過去業未來中果法也。又十力中第二力知三世諸業。又云。若無過去業則無三途報。又云。學人若在有漏心中。則不應名為聖人。以此諸比。固知不應無過去。若無過去未來則非通理經。法所不許。又十二因緣是佛法之深者。若定有過去未來則與此法相違。所以者何。如有穀子地水時節牙根得生。若先已定有則無所待有。若先有則不名從緣而生。又若先有則是常倒。是故不得定有不得定無。有無之說唯時所宜耳。以過去法起行業。不得言無。

Your refined treatise's great comprehension is very fine. Positing past and future as definitively nonexistent makes it incomprehensible. The Buddha explained the form aggregate: the harmony of the three periods of time is collectively named 'form'; the five aggregates are all like this. It is also said: Mind arises from mind, just as grain arises from grain. Therefore we know: there must be a past, free from the fault of causelessness. It is also said: The mental consciousness among the six consciousnesses relies on the already-ceased mind as its basis to arise. Furthermore, right view is called the past karma producing results in the future. Also, the second of the ten powers is knowing the karmas of the three periods of time. It is also said: If there were no past karma, there would be no retribution in the three destinies. It is also said: If a practitioner is in a contaminated mind, they should not be called a sage. By these various analogies, we certainly know that the past should not be nonexistent. If the past and future were nonexistent, it would not be a penetrative principle, which the sūtras and Dharma do not allow. Furthermore, the twelve links of dependent origination are the profoundest part of the Buddha Dharma. If past and future were definitively existent, it would contradict this Dharma. Why is this so? Just as there are grain seed, earth, water, and season, and the sprout and root can arise: if it were definitively existent beforehand, it would not depend on anything to exist; if it existed beforehand, it would not be called arising from conditions. Furthermore, if it existed beforehand, it would be the inverted view of permanence. Therefore, it cannot be definitively existent, nor definitively nonexistent. The discourse of existence and nonexistence is only what is suitable to the occasion. Since past dharmas give rise to actions, one cannot call them nonexistent.