The Tri-Temporal Existence of the Dhammas

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

The Tri-Temporal Existence of the Dhammas

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings,

The Sarvastivadins argued that dhammas exist in the past, present and future. They argued that they had to in order to account for the effects of kamma through time. To be cognisant of something it has to exist, so if a past dhamma doesn't exist it can't become an object of consciousness. From the wiki page:
"If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala). Do not state that there is a mistake. When stating that [the fact that] what is remote is past and that what will exist is future, does not exist, and that there only is the present, this is not right. Why? Because there is retribution (vipaka) of action. The World-honored One has been saying: "There is action and there is retribution". It is not the case that this action and retribution are both present. When action is present, it should be known that retribution is future; when retribution is present, it should be known that action is already past. [ ... ] As has been said: "If there are no such five faculties as faith (sraddhendriya), I say that this is the generation of worldlings (prthagjana)". When the seeker (saiksa) is the one who is bound by envelopers (paryavasthana), such five faculties as faith are not present; because the path is not together with defilement (klesa). That is why it should be known that there is past and future. If it were different, noble persons (aryapudgala) would have to be worldlings."[65]

Vasubandhu outlines the main arguments based on scripture and reason for all exists as follows:[66]

a. For, it has been said by the Buddha: “O bhikṣus, if past rūpa did not exist, the learned noble disciple could not have become disgusted with regard to the past rūpa. It is because past rūpa exists that the learned noble disciple becomes disgusted with regard to the past rūpa. If future rūpa did not exist, the learned noble disciple could not have become free from delight with regard to the future rūpa. It is because future rūpa exists that…”

b. It has been said by the Buddha, “Conditioned by the two [— sense organ and the object —], there is the arising of consciousness…”

c. Consciousness arises when there is an object, not when there is no object. This is a fixed principle. If past and future [dharma‑s] were non-existent, there would be a consciousness having a non-existent object. Hence, in the absence of an object, consciousness itself would not exist.

d. If past [dharma‑s] were non-existent, how could there be in the future the fruit of pure or impure karma? For it is not the case that at the time of the arising of the fruit a present retribution-cause exists!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaibh%C4%81%E1%B9%A3ika

What is the Theravada Abhidhamma refutation of this argument?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Tri-Temporal Existence of the Dhammas

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote:What is the Theravada Abhidhamma refutation of this argument?
Not so much a refutation, but more of a caution against veering toward either side of the existence/non-existence dichotomy. Hence, it'd be better to go with the Sutta sources instead of various schools' later Sastras:
SN 12.15 wrote:This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”
Post Reply