All things exists in the past present and future , Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha?

Question

I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question.

So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis.

It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "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)."

Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it?

Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers.

Thank you

Answer 1

As I understand, Sarvastivada explains that all things exist in continuity. Nothing comes from nowhere and disappears into nothing, but everything transforms. Therefore the past contains seeds or elements that become things found in the future. In this sense, everything exists at all times, just not in the same form. None of the forms are permanent, but everything that existed in the past, exists in the future, just not in the same way.

The original teaching of the Buddha said that the notions of existence and nonexistence are two extreme simplifications, and that the truth is in the middle. Things develop into other things, come together, and fall apart.

Answer 2

This question is essentially:

"How is it, does the world exist? Did the world exist in the past? Will the world exist in the future?"

to which the Buddha consistently answers:

"This is not the case here."

When asked what the case was, he answers with one form or another of the Paticca Samuppada (Rebounding Self-generation), one of the shortest versions of which is:
"This being that becomes
From the ending of this, the ending of that."

The Buddhist position is to put aside all opinions concerning the existence or non-existence of things, and to operate in stead from a position which takes no sides. That is the position that results from following the Magga.

The first step of the Magga, for example, is Samma Ditthi: or 'Consummate View'. This is a way to operate in the world without opinions concerning existence; in stead of basing one's behavior on the idea that the soul or self exists (resulting in the extreme case in self-torture) or does not exist (resulting in self-indulgence) the position is taken that 'this' (whatever, but essentially everything conceivable) is ultimately painful and should be let go with the result in freedom from pain.

Answer 3

Mahavihara Theravada: every reality is real every time if it still has its own factors, but it is exit, arising, only when the factors are plenary enough in some period of time then it must vanish when its factors vanish.

So, the past and future are real but not existing, but the present is real and existing.

Answer 4

Using the word existence is not a good idea, especially with all the philosophers who misuse it.

The buddha says that puthujjanas take some of the conditioned things as the self, as not conditionned, as not empty, whereas the proper view to have about the conditioned things is that the conditioned things are just conditioned and nothing more. The whole point of a conditioned things is that it is born when the condition for its birth is met, and it dies when the condition for its death is met.

The buddha says that there are ''acquisitions'', so it is perfectly fine to say ''acquisitions exist'', especially for puthujjanas. The buddha never said that conditioned things do not exist for a puthujjana, nor that acquisitions do not exist for a puthujjana. The big mistake that puthujjanas do is that they view those acquisitions as self.

The the buddha claims that it is bad that conditioned things are born, so it is bad that they exist, and it is good that conditioned things die. and to get the death of conditioned things, you have to trigger the condition for their death. When all those stuff die, there is no acquisition and he calls that the perfect enlightenment and there is nothings else to do about those acquisitions (because they are all dead).