English
No, it should not be said so. ... For the Once-returner, there is past identity view, and is the Once-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 Once-returner, there is past doubt. ... There is past gross ill-will, and is the Once-returner not malevolent-minded by that ill-will? Yes. For the ordinary person, there is past gross ill-will, and is the ordinary person not malevolent-minded by that ill-will? No, it should not be said so. ... For the Stream-enterer, there is past identity view, and is the Stream-enterer 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 Stream-enterer, there is past doubt. ... There is past delusion leading to lower realms, and is the Stream-enterer not deluded by that delusion? Yes. For the ordinary person, there is past delusion leading to lower realms, and is the ordinary person not deluded by that delusion? No, it should not be said so. ... Past Discussion on Past Hands, etc. 293. Are there past hands? Yes. When there are past hands, is taking and placing discernible? It should not be said so. Are there past feet? Yes. When there are past feet, is going forward and backward discernible? It should not be said so. Are there past limbs? Yes. When there are past limbs, is bending and stretching discernible? It should not be said so. Is there a past belly? Yes. When there is a past belly, are hunger and thirst discernible? It should not be said so. Is there a past body? Yes. Is a past body subject to grasping and releasing, subject to cutting and piercing, shared by crows, vultures, and kites? It should not be said so. Could poison act on a past body, could a weapon act, could fire act? It should not be said so. Is it possible to bind a past body with a rope-binding, with a cord-binding, with a chain-binding, with a village-binding, with a town-binding, with a city-binding, with a country-binding, with the five neck-bindings? It should not be said so. Is there past water? Yes. Does one do what is to be done with water with that water? It should not be said so. Is there past fire? Yes. Does one do what is to be done with fire with that fire? It should not be said so. Is there past wind? Yes. Does one do what is to be done with wind with that wind? It should not be said so. Discussion on the Combination of Past Aggregates, etc. 294. Is there a past aggregate of form, is there a future aggregate of form, is there a present aggregate of form? Yes. Are there three aggregates of form? It should not be said so. Are there past five aggregates, are there future five aggregates, are there present five aggregates? Yes. Are there fifteen aggregates? It should not be said so. Is there a past eye-base, is there a future eye-base, is there a present eye-base? Is there? Yes. Are there three eye-bases? It should not be said thus. Are there past twelve bases, are there future twelve bases, are there present twelve bases? Yes. Are there thirty-six bases? It should not be said thus. Is there a past eye-element, is there a future eye-element, is there a present eye-element? Yes. Are there three eye-elements? It should not be said thus. Are there past eighteen elements, are there future eighteen elements, are there present eighteen elements? Yes. Are there fifty-four elements? It should not be said thus. Is there a past eye-faculty, is there a future eye-faculty, is there a present eye-faculty? Yes. Are there three eye-faculties? It should not be said thus. Are there past twenty-two faculties, are there future twenty-two faculties, are there present twenty-two faculties? Yes. Are there sixty-six faculties? It should not be said thus. Is there a past Wheel-turning monarch, is there a future Wheel-turning monarch, is there a present Wheel-turning monarch? Yes. Is there a simultaneous appearance of three Wheel-turning monarchs? It should not be said thus. Is there a past Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is there a future Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is there a present Perfectly Self-Enlightened One? Yes. Is there a simultaneous appearance of three Perfectly Self-Enlightened Ones? It should not be said thus. Discussion on the Purification of Terms Is there a past? Yes. Is there a past? There is a past, it might be past, it might be not-past. Understand the refutation. If there is a past, there is a past, it might be past, it might be not-past, then the past is not-past, the not-past is past. What you say there – "It should be said: 'There is a past, there is a past, it might be past, it might be not-past, then the past is not-past, the not-past is past'" – is wrong. But if the past is not-past, and the not-past is past, then indeed it should not be said – ' 'The past exists. It exists, it might be past. It might not be past.' What you say there: 'Indeed, it should be said: The past exists. It exists, it might be past. It might not be past. Therefore, the past is not past. The not-past is past.' is wrong. Does the future exist? Yes. Does it exist, the future? It exists, it might be future. It might not be future. Understand the refutation. If the future exists, it exists, it might be future, it might not be future, therefore the future is not future, the not-future is future. What you say there: 'Indeed, it should be said: The future exists. It exists, it might be future. It might not be future. Therefore, the future is not future. The not-future is future.' is wrong. But if the future is not not-future, the not-future is future, then indeed it should not be said: 'The future exists. It exists, it might be future. It might not be future.' What you say there: 'Indeed, it should be said: The future exists. It exists, it might be future. It might not be future. Therefore, the future is not future. The not-future is future.' is wrong. Does the present exist? Yes. Does it exist, the present? It exists, it might be present. It might not be present. Understand the refutation. If the present exists, it exists, it might be present, it might not be present, therefore the present is not present, the not-present is present. What you say there: 'Indeed, it should be said: The present exists. It exists, it might be present. It might not be present. Therefore, the present is not present. The not-present is present.' is wrong. But if the present is not not-present, the not-present is present, then indeed it should not be said: 'The present exists. It exists, it might be present. It might not be present.' What you say there: 'Indeed, it should be said: The present exists. It exists, it might be present. It might not be present. Therefore, the present is not present. The not-present is present...' "arisen" is wrong. Is Nibbana? Yes. Is Nibbana? There is Nibbana, there might be Nibbana, there might not be Nibbana. Understand the refutation. If Nibbana exists, there is Nibbana, there might be Nibbana, there might not be Nibbana, then Nibbana is not Nibbana, not Nibbana is Nibbana. What you say there – "It should be said: 'There is Nibbana, there might be Nibbana, there might not be Nibbana, then Nibbana is not Nibbana, not Nibbana is Nibbana'" – is wrong. If Nibbana is not not Nibbana, and not Nibbana is Nibbana, then it should not be said: "There is Nibbana, there might be Nibbana, there might not be Nibbana." What you say there – "It should be said: 'There is Nibbana, there might be Nibbana, there might not be Nibbana, then Nibbana is not Nibbana, not Nibbana is Nibbana'" – is wrong. Proof by Sutta 296. Should it not be said: "The past exists, the future exists"? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "Whatever form, monks, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near – this is called the form aggregate. Whatever feeling... whatever perception... whatever volitional formations... Whatever consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near – this is called the consciousness aggregate." Is there such a Sutta? Yes. Therefore, the past exists, the future exists. Does the past exist, does the future exist? Yes. Has it not been said by the Blessed One: "These three, monks, are ways of expression, ways of designation, ways of description, unmixed, unmixed in the past, not mixed now, not to be mixed in the future, not criticized by recluses, brahmins, or the wise. Which three? Whatever form, monks, is past, ceased, gone, transformed – it is reckoned as 'it was', it is reckoned as 'it was'..." Whatever form that is past, ceased, gone, transformed, 'it was' is its reckoning, 'it was' is its designation, 'it was' is its declaration; not its reckoning 'it is', not its reckoning 'it will be'. Whatever feeling, whatever perception, whatever formations, whatever consciousness that is past, ceased, gone, transformed, 'it was' is its reckoning, 'it was' is its designation, 'it was' is its declaration; not its reckoning 'it is', not its reckoning 'it will be'. "Monks, whatever form is unborn, not manifested, 'it will be' is its reckoning, 'it will be' is its designation, 'it will be' is its declaration; not its reckoning 'it is', not its reckoning 'it was'. Whatever feeling, whatever perception, whatever formations, whatever consciousness is unborn, not manifested, 'it will be' is its reckoning, 'it will be' is its designation, 'it will be' is its declaration; not its reckoning 'it is', not its reckoning 'it was'. "Monks, whatever form is born, manifested, 'it is' is its reckoning, 'it is' is its designation, 'it is' is its declaration; not its reckoning 'it was', not its reckoning 'it will be'. Whatever feeling, whatever perception, whatever formations, whatever consciousness is born, manifested,