6.

Discussion on Past Aggregates and So Forth

1.

Commentary on the Treatise on Non-Establishment by Discourse

297. Now there is the discussion beginning with "the past is aggregates." Therein, because of not abandoning the nature of aggregates and so on, for one who wishes for the existence of the past and future, "is the past aggregates?" is the question of the opponent; because the past is included in the aggregates, "Yes" is the acknowledgment of the proponent of one's own doctrine. Again, "the past does not exist" is the question of the opponent; because existence has been prevented by the Niruttipatha Sutta, the rejecting is of the proponent of one's own doctrine. In the questions on sense bases and elements too, in the questions on the future too, in the questions that come by way of forward and reverse order by correlating with the present too, and in the questions beginning with "past matter" too, the meaning should be understood by this same approach.

2.

Commentary on the Establishment by Discourse

298. In the establishment by discourse, however, "should it not be said" is the question of the proponent of one's own doctrine. Therein, "natthi cete" means "these phenomena do not exist." "Yes" is the acknowledgment of the opponent, who does not wish for nonexistence when there is the state of being aggregates and so on; then the bringing of the discourse by the proponent of one's own doctrine is for the purpose of establishing their nonexistence. The second question is also of the opponent, the acknowledgment is of the proponent of one's own doctrine, and the bringing of the discourse is of the opponent. But that establishes only their state of being aggregates and so on, not their existence - thus even what is brought is as if not brought.

Commentary on the Treatise Beginning with "The Past Aggregates."