Sarvāstivādins assert all factors (dharma) exist in all times. In their ontology, the way factors pass through the present time seems problematic if they “exist” in the three times : future, present, and past. To answer this problem, the Abhidharma scholar Vasumitra defined the present time as the time when factors have their activities (kāritra). Although his theory was accepted by Sarvāstivādins in general, it was still unclear what he meant by the word “activity”. Therefore, another Abhidharma scholar, Saṃghabhadra, the author of *Nyāyānusāriṇī, redefined it “the power to project its own effect (*phalākṣepaśakti)” that all conditioned (saṃskṛta) factors must have in the present. Modern scholars such as G. Sasaki explained *phalākṣepa as phalapratigraha, an ability that a conditioned factor fixes itself as a cause of its own effect. Contrary to this explanation, T. Fukuda reasoned that not every phalapratigraha is *phalākṣepa, and concluded that *phalākṣepa corresponds only to those phalapratigraha affecting the effect that arises after its cause arose (“*phalākṣepa≠phalapratigraha theory”). The present article reconsiders Fukuda’s hypothesis. By this reconsideration the article clarifies that his understanding unconsciously presupposes a few notions Saṃghabhadra does not accept. From this discussion, it is concluded that every phalapratigraha is *phalākṣepa which Saṃghabhadra regarded as deciding the present.
