English
And who says, "it exists like the present"? How then does it exist? With the nature of past and future. But this has occurred to you alone: how is that past is called future, if it always exists. But what is said in the Sutta: ‘‘He does not die yet, until that evil is exhausted’’ (M.N. 3.250), that is said with reference to the capacity to produce that fruit, which was deposited by the action performed and accumulated in that continuum, not because the past action has an existing nature. If that were so, how could that which exists by its own nature be called past? And it should be understood thus: that which, not having been, comes into being, and having been, ceases, for these, before their arising and after their ceasing, there is no stability at all, whereby past and future could be said to exist. Therefore it is said: ‘‘Broken, not stored away, there is no heap in the future; Even those that have arisen and stand, are like mustard seeds on the tip of an awl.’’ (Mahāni. 10, 39); And if the future were ultimately real, it would not be possible to say that it comes into being without having been. If it comes into being without having been in the present time? No, because time is merely the flow of phenomena. If it comes into being without having been by its own nature, then it is established that the future does not exist ultimately. And what is said: ‘‘If the past did not exist, how could the fruit of wholesome and unwholesome action arise in the future?’’ Here, the arising of fruit is not desired from past action, but from its having been done, from the special quality deposited by it in the continuum. For it was said by the Blessed One: ‘‘From the doing and accumulating of wholesome action in the sense-sphere, the resultant eye-consciousness arises’’ (Dhs. 431). But for one for whom past and future exist ultimately, the fruit always exists, so what is the power of action there? If in producing, this is established: it comes into being without having been. And what is said: ‘‘If past and future do not exist, how could knowledge function there?’’ As that object is, so it exists, and how is that object? It was and it will be. For no one remembering the past remembers it as existing, but rather as having been. Just as a present object is experienced, so is that past object remembered. And just as a present object will be, so is it grasped by Buddhas and others. If it truly exists as such, it would be present. If it does not exist, it is proven that "the non-existent is an object of knowledge." For mental states have objects, whether existent or non-existent, as they arise not only with reference to the existent. Therefore, the doctrine of "all exists" does not hold that only the present, the existing nature, is not past or future. Some, however, say: "The 'all exists' doctrine is not about affirming the existence of past and so on, but about affirming the existence of all sense-bases." According to their view, all followers of the teaching would be "all-existents." The explanation of the discourse on word analysis is finished. The explanation of the discourse on "all exists" is finished. 6. Discourse on Past Aggregates and so on. 1. Explanation of the discourse on the non-sutta proof. 297. The expression "past, future, present" is a conventional designation, divided by time, established for phenomena based on their respective specific states. A phenomenon is present at the moment of its function; before that, it is future; after that, it is past. This is the meaning stated. Although phenomena are impermanent and not fixed, their states, as described, are fixed. Therefore, the designation of time, based on these, is also fixed. Indeed, the past and so on are not spoken of as future and so on. However, the designation of aggregates and so on does not depend on specific time. For in all three times, the form aggregate is just the form aggregate, and similarly for the remaining aggregates, sense-bases, and elements. When this is established, since the opponent applies the expression "exists," which is restricted to the present, even to the past and future, they create a confusion of times. They speak of what is ultimately non-existent as if it were existent. Therefore, to distinguish from that, this discourse, beginning with "past aggregates," has been commenced. Since phenomena, which have the nature of being oppressed and so on, and are divided into past and so on, are taken together and there, the characteristic of a heap... by grasping which there is the designation of aggregates, by grasping the causes and so forth in eye-form and so forth, and by grasping the emptiness, there is the designation of sense bases and elements. Therefore, it is common to the three times, not established in a specific time like the designation of past and so forth. Thus it is said: "because they do not abandon the state of aggregates and so forth, of past and future." But the opponent, perceiving these past and so forth, as having an intrinsic nature like the aggregates and so forth, asserts "they exist." Thus it is said: "for one who desires the existence of past and future." What needs to be said here about the rest is in the same manner as stated earlier. The Sutta "These three, monks, are paths of expression" is the Niruttipatha Sutta. For in it, only the existence of the present is stated, not of the past and future. Therefore it is said: "because their existence is denied." If so, how is "Monks, Nibbāna exists" to be understood? That is said because it is always attained, to make known the permanent nature of the unconditioned phenomenon. But here, for conditioned phenomena, to make known that their existence, being endowed with the three moments, is not before or after that, it is said: "Whatever form, monks... ...there will be no reckoning of it." By this, it is shown that the past and future do not exist in the ultimate sense, because they are not grasped by the designation "exists." By this very method means "by the reason thus stated: 'because they do not abandon the state of aggregates and so forth'." For here, the logical reasoning for establishing a proposition is called "method." The commentary on the refutation of the Sutta is finished. 2. Commentary on the Establishment of the Sutta 298. "These phenomena" means these phenomena of aggregates, sense bases, and elements. "Bringing forth the Sutta" means bringing forth the Niruttipatha Sutta. "Of these" means of the past and future. The commentary on the establishment of the Sutta is finished. The commentary on the past aggregates and so forth is finished. 7. The Discourse on "Some Exist" 1. Commentary on "Some" in the Past and so forth 299. Those wholesome and unwholesome phenomena that have been performed and accumulated, which have not yet had the opportunity to yield results, and those that have had the opportunity, are called "opportunity-created and arisen." And those whose results are not yet fully ripened, all these are to be understood as "unripened results." They exist. The opponent wishes for their existence, with the intention that their power to give results has not ceased. But those opponents who say that all unwholesome and wholesome states, which are results and their ripening, have ceased, wish for their non-existence. Therefore it is said, "Some exist, some do not exist," and so on. To show that for such an opponent, just as some non-ripened states do not exist, so too it applies to ripened and unripened states, the Pāli text proceeds with "some unripened states," and so on. Therefore it is said, "by means of the three heaps," and so on. By way of convention, meaning by way of the convention of the non-cessation of the fruit, but since the opponent holds the view that the causal action is unceasing and unbroken, he is to be challenged. For the opponent wishes for the continuous convention of the fruit, which proceeds without interruption, to exist by convention. But for him, the cause, action, is not ultimate reality, and because he is a proponent of the accumulation of action, like the states of attainment and non-attainment, an accumulation of action, dissociated from consciousness, is a single conditioned state, unripened, and that too is a synonym for him, the opponent. Referring to this, it is said: Actions do not ripen, even after thousands of aeons; Having met with the full complement of conditions, in due time they ripen for beings. And referring to this, later, in the discussion of merit from enjoyment, it will be said, "he acknowledges the view that merit from enjoyment, dissociated from consciousness, arises." The explanation of the discussion of "some exist" is finished. 8. Explanation of the Discussion of Mindfulness Foundations 301. By "ultimate mindfulness foundations," it is shown that only supramundane right mindfulness, and among that, that which is path-constituent, is directly a mindfulness foundation, being leading to liberation, while the other is so by way of analogy. The analogy of path-and-fruit right mindfulness being a state of dhamma-recollection is why it is said, "of the collection of mundane and supramundane mindfulness foundations." The intention is "of the collection of mindfulness," not "of the object of mindfulness." To challenge the mindfulness foundation nature of the object of mindfulness, the Pāli text says, "the eye-base." is 'mindfulness'. Therefore it was said: 'spoken by way of asking about the distinctions of all phenomena'. But in the explanation of the Sutta, it should be understood that first it is shown by way of mundane mindfulness, second by way of mixed, and third by way of supramundane. The commentary on the discourse on mindfulness is finished. 9. Commentary on the Discourse on 'It Is Thus' 304. In the discourse on 'It Is Thus', the opponent's view, which asserts 'all phenomena exist by their own nature, and do not exist by another's nature',