There is a ball kept on a table in front of a person. The person can see the ball. Then the ball disappeared. Then the person will say that there was a ball on this table in the past.
Here, we have to introduce an ‘entity’ that ball was ‘in’. That entity is called ‘time’.
But with abhidhamma, we say earlier ‘varna rupa’ made contact with ‘cakku pasada rupa’ and what ‘recognized’ that varna rupa is cakku vinnana. After the ball disappeared,
when the person recalls dhamma is making contact with mana indriya, vaci sankhara and mano vinnana is recognizing and saying, “the ball was there in the past.”
Vinnana is defiled consciousness so its better to use the term ‘Citta & Cetasika’.
What we are discussing is ‘perpetuation’ of lifestream, for perpetuation we have to introduce ‘time’ like in the example for explaining the disappearence of the ball we have to impart the concept of time. But with abhidhamma, concept of time is not required because whatever is recognized is ‘Rupa’ and recognition is ‘Nama’ and a being is this inter-manisfestation of both. If we discuss based on any reference other than Paramatthas, as in case of X, concept of ‘transmigration’ of any ‘entity’ in an ‘entity” comes into picture where entity is soul, entity’ is time.
This is what I have tried to explain in my above post that why a discussion on lifestream’s perpetuation will never come at any satisfactory conclusion because we then will be introducing those ‘entities’ which do not ‘exist’ by their own nature, like that of Paramatthas.
Thank You :)