English
Are there present forms? Is there present eye-consciousness? Is there present light? Is there present attention? And does one not see a present form with a present eye? It should not be said thus. Is there a past mind? Are there past mental objects? Is there past mind-consciousness? Is there a past base? Is there past attention? And does one not discern a past mental object with a past mind? Yes. Is there a present mind? Are there present mental objects? Is there present mind-consciousness? Is there a present base? Is there present attention? And does one not discern a present mental object with a present mind? It should not be said thus. Is there a future eye? Are there future forms? Is there future eye-consciousness? Is there future light? Is there future attention? And does one not see a future form with a future eye? Is there a past? Yes. Is there a present eye, are there forms, is there eye-consciousness, is there light, is there attention, and yet with the present eye one does not see a present form? It should not be said so... Is there a future ear... nose... tongue... body... Is there a mind, are there mental objects, is there mind-consciousness, is there a basis, is there attention, and yet with the future mind one does not discern a future mental object? Yes. Is there a present mind, are there mental objects, is there mind-consciousness, is there a basis, is there attention, and yet with the present mind one does not discern a present mental object? It should not be said so... Discourse on Past Knowledge, etc. Is there past knowledge? Yes. With that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? It should not be said so... With that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? Yes. With that knowledge, does one fully understand suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? It should not be said so... Is there future knowledge? Yes. With that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? It should not be said so... With that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? Yes. With that knowledge, does one fully understand suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? It should not be said so... Is there present knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? Yes. Is there past knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? It should not be said so... Is there present knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one fully understand suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? Yes. Is there past knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one fully understand suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? It should not be said so... Is there present knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? Yes. Is there future knowledge, and with that knowledge, does one perform the task of knowledge? Does it perform the function of knowledge? It should not be said thus. [...] Is there present knowledge? By that knowledge one comprehends suffering, abandons the origin, realizes cessation, develops the path? Yes. Is there future knowledge? By that knowledge one comprehends suffering, abandons the origin, realizes cessation, develops the path? It should not be said thus. [...] Is there past knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not perform the function of knowledge? Yes. Is there present knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not perform the function of knowledge? It should not be said thus. [...] Is there past knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not comprehend suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? Yes. Is there present knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not comprehend suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? It should not be said thus. [...] Is there future knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not perform the function of knowledge? Yes. Is there present knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not perform the function of knowledge? It should not be said thus. [...] Is there future knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not comprehend suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? Yes. Is there present knowledge, and by that knowledge one does not comprehend suffering, abandon the origin, realize cessation, develop the path? It should not be said thus. [...] Discourse on Arahants, etc. 291. Does an Arahant have past passion? Yes. Is an Arahant passionate by that passion? It should not be said thus. [...] Does an Arahant have past hatred? Yes. Is an Arahant hateful by that hatred? It should not be said thus. [...] Does an Arahant have past delusion? Yes. Is an Arahant deluded by that delusion? It should not be said thus. [...] Does an Arahant have past conceit? Yes. Is an Arahant conceited by that conceit? It should not be said thus. [...] Does an Arahant have past wrong view? Yes. Is an Arahant by that [wrong view]... Is he, by that view, one with views? It should not be said so... Has an Arahant had past doubt? Yes. Is an Arahant, by that doubt, one with doubt? It should not be said so... Has an Arahant had past sloth? Yes. Is an Arahant, by that sloth, one with sloth? It should not be said so... Has an Arahant had past restlessness? Yes. Is an Arahant, by that restlessness, one with restlessness? It should not be said so... Has an Arahant had past shamelessness? Yes. Is an Arahant, by that shamelessness, one with shamelessness? It should not be said so... Has an Arahant had past fearlessness of wrongdoing? Yes. Is an Arahant, by that fearlessness, one with fearlessness? It should not be said so... Has an Anāgāmī had past identity view? Yes. Is an Anāgāmī, by that view, one with views? It should not be said so... Has an Anāgāmī had past doubt... past clinging to rites and rituals... past subtle sensual desire... past subtle ill-will? Yes. Is an Anāgāmī, by that ill-will, one with an ill-willed mind? It should not be said so... Has a Sakadāgāmī had past identity view? Yes. Is a Sakadāgāmī, by that view, one with views? It should not be said so... Has a Sakadāgāmī had past doubt... past clinging to rites and rituals... past gross sensual desire... past gross ill-will? Yes. Is a Sakadāgāmī, by that ill-will, one with an ill-willed mind? It should not be said so... Has a Sotāpanna had past identity view? Yes. Is a Sotāpanna, by that view, one with views? It should not be said so... Has a Sotāpanna had past doubt... past clinging to rites and rituals... past desire leading to lower realms... past aversion leading to lower realms... past delusion leading to lower realms? Yes. Is a Sotāpanna, by that delusion, one with delusion? It should not be said so... 292. Has an ordinary person had past desire? Is an ordinary person, by that desire, one with desire? Yes. Has an Arahant had a Past lust exists, is the Arahant lustful because of that lust? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past hatred exists... Past shamelessness exists, is the ordinary person shameless because of that shamelessness? Yes. For the Arahant, past shamelessness exists, is the Arahant shameless because of that shamelessness? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past identity view exists, is the ordinary person holding views because of that view? Yes. For the Non-returner, past identity view exists, is the Non-returner holding views because of that view? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past doubt exists... Past subtle ill-will exists, is the ordinary person malevolent-minded because of that ill-will? Yes. For the Non-returner, past subtle ill-will exists, is the Non-returner malevolent-minded because of that ill-will? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past identity view exists, is the ordinary person holding views because of that view? Yes. For the Once-returner, past identity view exists, is the Once-returner holding views because of that view? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past doubt exists... Past gross ill-will exists, is the ordinary person malevolent-minded because of that ill-will? Yes. For the Once-returner, past gross ill-will exists, is the Once-returner malevolent-minded because of that ill-will? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past identity view exists, is the ordinary person holding views because of that view? Yes. For the Stream-enterer, past identity view exists, is the Stream-enterer holding views because of that view? It should not be said thus... For the ordinary person, past doubt exists... Past delusion leading to lower realms exists, is the ordinary person deluded because of that delusion? Yes. For the Stream-enterer, past delusion leading to lower realms exists, is the Stream-enterer deluded because of that delusion? It should not be said thus... For the Arahant, past lust exists, but is the Arahant not lustful because of that lust? Yes. For the ordinary person, past lust Does the ordinary person have past passion, and is the ordinary person not impassioned by that passion? No, it should not be said so. ... For the Arahant, there is past hatred. ... There is past shamelessness, and is the Arahant not shameless by that shamelessness? Yes. For the ordinary person, there is past shamelessness, and is the ordinary person not shameless by that shamelessness? No, it should not be said so. ... For the Non-returner, there is past identity view, and is the Non-returner not holding that view? Yes. For the ordinary person, there is past identity view, and is the ordinary person not holding that view? No, it should not be said so. ... For the Non-returner, there is past doubt. ... There is past subtle ill-will, and is the Non-returner not malevolent-minded by that ill-will? Yes. For the ordinary person, there is past subtle ill-will, and is the ordinary person not malevolent-minded by that ill-will?