Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c35.s3.t5.9

v2.c35.s3.t5.9

The next question put by the Th. is whether past (atīta) gives up its pastness (atītabhāva)? The S. answer in the negative, but take care to note that when they say that atītabhāva exists they mean that anāgatabhāva (futurity) and paccuppannabhāva (presentness) do not exist like the atītabhāva, and similarly when they predicate existence of anāgatabhāva, they mean atīta- *bhāva* and *paccuppannabhāva* do not exist like *anāgatabhāva*. This general statement is then applied to each of the *khandhas*. The Th. round up the discussion by their usual *suddhikanaya* saying that *atīta* or *atītabhāva* then would be the same as *nibbāna* or *nibbānabhāva* a conclusion rejected by the S. The Th. then take to *vacanasodhana* (clearing up of verbal errors) saying that (i) if the existence of past (*atīta*) and non-past (*nātīta*) as also future (*anāgata*) and non-future (*nānāgata*) is denied then the S. should not say that past and future exist; so also (ii) if they do not accept the identity of *atīta*, *paccuppanna* and *anāgata*,¹ they cannot say that *atīta* and *anāgata* exist.