The present pot and the past one

Do not exist in the future pot.

Since both would be future,

The future would not exist. [11.251]

If a disintegrated thing exists as

A future entity in the future,

How can what is future in nature

Become that which is past? [11.252]

Because of being future in nature

A future functional thing

Is thus present

And cannot be future. [11.253]

If the future, past and present exist,

What does not exist?

How can there be impermanence

For one for whom all times exist? [11.254]

If it has passed beyond the past

Why is it the past?

If it has not passed beyond the past

Why is it the past? [11.255]

If the future is produced

Why is it not present?

If it is unproduced

Is the future permanent or what? [11.256]

If the future is impermanent because

Though not produced it disintegrates,

Since the past does not disintegrate

Why not consider it permanent? [11.257]

If the past and present

Are not impermanent,

The third which is different

From these is also not. [11.258]

If a thing which will be produced

Later exists beforehand,

The contention of Niyativadins

Is not erroneous. [11.259]

To say something which will be made to occur

Already exists is unreasonable.

If that which exists is produced,

What has been produced will arise again. [11.260]

If future things are seen,

Why is the non-existent not seen? [11.261ab]

For one for whom the future exists

There can be no distant [time]. [11.261cd]

If virtue exists though nothing is done,

Resolute restraint is meaningless.

If even a little is done

The effect cannot exist. [11.262]

If they are impermanent

How can it be said effects exist?

That which has a beginning and end

Is called impermanent in the world. [11.263]

Liberation will occur without exertion.

For the liberated there is no future,

Or otherwise, if this were so,

Desire would arise without attachment. [11.264]

For those who assert effects exist,

And for those who assert they do not exist,

Adornments like pillars and so forth

For a home are purposeless. [11.265]

The transformation of things also

Is not perceived even by the mind.

Those who lack wisdom nevertheless

Think that the present exists. [11.266]

How can there be things with no duration?

Being impermanent, how can they endure?

If they had duration first,

They would not grow old in the end. [11.267]

Just as a single consciousness

Cannot apprehend two objects,

Similarly two consciousnesses

Cannot apprehend one object. [11.268]

If time has duration

Duration is not time.

If it has not, without duration

There will also be no end. [11.269]

If impermanence and things are separate

Things are not impermanent.

If they are one, since things are precisely that which is

Impermanent, how can they have duration? [11.270]

If duration is not weak

Because impermanence is weak,

Why should a reversal

Afterwards be seen? [11.271]

If impermanence is not weaker

And is present in all things,

None of them will have duration

Or not all are impermanent. [11.272]

If there is always impermanence

There cannot always be duration,

Or else that which was permanent

Later becomes impermanent. [11.273]

If things have duration

And impermanence together,

Either it is wrong that things are impermanent,

Or duration is a fallacy. [11.274]

Things seen do not reappear,

Nor does awareness arise again.

Thus memory is in fact deceived

With regard to a deceptive object. [11.275]