[1343] [Sakavādin:] Is a mind (citta) that has the past as its object (atītārammaṇa) without an object (anārammaṇa)?
[Paravādin:] Yes.
[S.:] But does it not have the past as its object?
[P.:] Yes.
[S.:] If it has the past as its object, then indeed, good sir, it should not be said that "a mind that has the past as its object is without an object"; to say "a mind that has the past as its object is without an object" is wrong. Or if, on the other hand, it is without an object, then indeed, good sir, it should not be said that "it has the past as its object"; to say "what is without an object has the past as its object" is wrong.
English translation from the Pali (Siam Raṭṭha edition) — under review, not for citation.