English
having squandered eighty-two crores of wealth, wandering for alms with his wife. Indeed, if he in his first age had not squandered his wealth but had engaged in business, he would have become the chief merchant in this very city. But if he had gone forth and become a monk, he would have attained arahantship, and his wife would have been established in the fruit of non-returning. If in his middle age he had not squandered his wealth but had engaged in business, he would have become the second merchant. Going forth and becoming a monk, he would have become a non-returner, and his wife would have been established in the fruit of once-returning. If in his last age he had not squandered his wealth but had engaged in business, he would have become the third merchant. Going forth and becoming a monk, he would have become a once-returner, and his wife would have been established in the fruit of stream-entry." or If the Teacher had lived in a house, he would have been a universal monarch. Novice Rāhula would have been the jewel of a leader, the nun the jewel of a woman, the entire universal kingdom would have belonged to them. Thus, or in this way, is a past tense statement of unfulfilled condition. How does a future tense statement of unfulfilled condition occur? "Long would the food have lasted, if we had not quarrelled. Headless, tailless, the jackal carries the rohita fish." Or, "If, Ānanda, women had not obtained permission to go forth from home to homelessness in the Dhamma and Vinaya proclaimed by the Tathāgata, then, Ānanda, the holy life would have endured for a long time." Or, "This is Aṅgulimāla's mother, going to 'bring Aṅgulimāla back.' If she meets him, Aṅgulimāla will kill his mother to 'complete a thousand fingers.' If I do not go, there would be great loss." Thus, or in this way, is a future tense statement of unfulfilled condition. However, in Kaccāyana's grammar, it should be understood that the past tense nature of the *kālātipatti* ending is generally stated with reference to past events. Even in Kaccāyana, this unfulfilled condition, however, occurs in the future too, this meaning is seen. For the unseen, for the remote past, even when there is a past tense marker, disregarding that, this (is said). "They will be in the future," thus, immediately after the rule, from the statement of unfulfilled condition, there is a drawing in of the future. Therefore, an indeterminate time, without the unfulfilled condition. With past, future, and present tense endings, the seventh (case) is indeed the seventh, it does not become an eighth. But for the fifth and seventh (cases), in the present tense ending, to include these, the sixth is not mentioned in between. Similarly, taking the fifth, and the sixth should be (understood). But that (which is) the fifth, is not called "sixth." Even though it is in the state of being a sixth, the word "fifth," however, for the fifth case ending, in the present tense ending, is said for the purpose of inclusion, it should be understood by the discerning one; taking the fifth, however, Of the seventh case. It should be the sixth, but it is not called "sixth"; Taking the sixth, however, it is called "seventh." Without showing the sixth in between, such a statement, too, regarding the seventh case, in the present tense case, is said for inclusion, one should understand the intention. This is indeed the nature of things, in their profound meanings; By whatever means, the intention is made known. Thus, first the past and future cases, having been stated, then the present cases should be spoken. In the text named Kaccāyana, why was it not spoken thus? Why was only the present case spoken at the beginning? Because they say these are mostly in common usage; Therefore, these cases are of frequent use. It is known that what is of frequent use should be spoken first; Therefore, cases arising in the present are considered primary. Having spoken of past and future, then of the present; Because in such a statement in the world, there is fluency of speech. Therefore, in fluent speech, considering the past and so on; These fifth and seventh cases, immediately after the present, are stated for inclusion among the present tense cases. Here, just as when "mother and father" is said, there is fluent speech; but in that very phrase, by reversing it and forming a compound "father and mother," there is no fluent speech. Therefore, such a word construction is not to be honored. However, the phrase "may father and mother give to me," being a disjunctive usage and thus used as desired, is to be honored. Similarly, when "past, future, present" is said, there is fluent speech; but when "past, present, future" and so on is said, there is no fluent speech. Therefore, such a word construction would be not to be honored. However, the saying "with past objects, and present and future ranges," being used as desired for the sake of poetic meter, is indeed to be honored. This Pāli should be understood here – "Whatever form, past, future, present." The one who sees the end of birth, the one compassionate for welfare, knows the one path. By this path, those of old crossed over, and those who cross now, and those who will cross the flood. And the Fully Enlightened Ones who have passed away, and the Buddhas yet to come, and those Fully Enlightened Ones who are now, are dispellers of sorrow for many. All, revering the Good Dhamma, have lived, and live, and will live; this is the nature of Buddhas. Thus, in many such applications of faith. Here, three present-tense inflections, out of the eight inflections pertaining to past, future, and present times, are mentioned at the beginning, according to the desired application. This mention is to indicate their frequent occurrence, as they are mostly used in common speech. Among these, the names "fifth" and "seventh" for two inflections should be stated in order, if a concise statement is desired, and these names are made with reference to the past and future tense inflections. Thus, By desired application, the present-tense inflections, having made them three-fold at the beginning, were declared by Kaccāna. And that mention at the beginning, is to indicate their frequent occurrence, as they are mostly used, so it should be explained. Referring to the past and so on, for a concise statement, it is certain that the names "fifth" and "seventh" were made for two (inflections). Excluding the conditional mood, this statement was made. If someone, a person unskilled in meaning, were to say, "If so, this fault undoubtedly arises," Then it should be refuted, saying, "No, for in the verb forms pertaining to the three times, the conditional mood is simply not included." In the verb forms pertaining to the three times, we do not desire the non-inclusion of the conditional mood; its inclusion is desired there. Our view is that the names "fifth" and "seventh" were made without reference to the inflection of the conditional mood. Taking various methods, the essence should be understood; by which this meaning is uttered, therefore, this is not weak. A commendable meaning is obtained, wherever, however, in that way, it should be grasped by one who discerns there. This has been stated in the Abhidhamma. In the commentary, it is said: “Wherever and however the meaning is taken, there and thus it should be understood.” Some say it is the fifth and seventh case, a conventional designation. But it should not be taken thus, they speak without knowing. This is not a designation of persons, like “jhala” and other designations; The designation spoken conventionally, is spoken with a real meaning. This designation is a metaphor, from here and there; An appropriate designation was established, by the ancients, so one should discern. Thus, the Wheel of Time, is briefly considered threefold; Referring to this very meaning, it is said, “which is threefold time.” Here is the summary of the Wheel of Time. Thus, a wise one, should distinguish the divisions of time, as threefold, fourfold, or even sixfold, as distinguished by those who know time. Taking past and future time, separately as time-transcending, it becomes fivefold, and thus one should distinguish. Here, the method is, “internally or externally,” in the Pāli text; The division of past and future time, is declared. Thus, the summary of time is completed in every way. Now, to generate skill in grasping meaning for the discerning, and to explain the concordance of the treatise in establishing the sequence of the two cases, called “fifth and seventh,” which were just mentioned in this treatise as imperative and conditional, according to another treatise – In the Kātantra treatise, ten kinds of verbal endings are established in accordance with the Sanskrit language; In the Kaccāyana treatise, however, eight kinds are established in accordance with the Māgadha language; And in the Nirutti, six kinds are established in accordance with the Māgadha language, as past, future, present, imperative, conditional, and time-transcending. Among these, in the Kātantra, they are divided into ten: present, seventh, fifth, yesterday, today, remote past, tomorrow, optative, future, and action-transcending. In the Kaccāyana, however, they are divided into eight: present, fifth, seventh, remote past, yesterday, today, future, and time-transcending. Thus, in these two, Kātantra and Kaccāyana, the divisions The endings are placed in a dissimilar order. Although here the order is dissimilar, yet they, according to the division of past, etc., stated in grammar, coincide and agree together, except for some distinction. How? In the endings, first, the hiyyattanī, ajjatanī, and parokkhā – these three are exclusively past tense. The svātanī, āsī, and bhavissanti – these three are exclusively future tense. The vattamānā is solely present tense. But the seventh and fifth (endings) are dual-tense,