Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c8.129.2

c8.129.2

So everything, past, present and future is unalterable and fixed. It is probably this very argument of the niyativādin, which provoked the Buddha to draw attention to the past, present and future usages of the verb ‘to be’ (ahosi, atthi, bhavissati) and enjoin the desirability of keeping ‘these three linguistic conventions’ (tayo’me niruttipathā) apart without confusing them, so that one may see that one cannot argue that ‘what will be’ (bhavissati) has existence (atthi) for the future that has not come into being and manifested itself has to be reckoned as ‘what will be’ (bhavissati) and cannot be reckoned as ‘what is’ (atthi)¹. It is significant that it is said at the end of this section that even ‘the ahetuvādins, the akiriyavādins and the natthikavādins cannot afford to condemn or reject these three linguistic conventions for otherwise they would be liable to censure’.² Here the akiriyavādin is a reference to Pūraṇa Kassapa, whose doctrine is called akiriyam at D. I.53, while a doctrine stated in identical language is called akiriyavāda- at M. I 404–5 (*v. supra*, 121). He seems to have been an outright niyativādin as his later reputation³ shows. Ahetuvādin on the other hand is probably a reference to Makkhali Gosāla, but his doctrine is called saṃsāra-suddhi (salvation by transmigration) at D. I.53 though at M. II.408, the same stated in identical language minus the cosmology is called ahetuvāda-.