English
5. Discussion on "Everything Exists" 1. Method of Debate Is everything? Yes. Is everything everywhere? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. Is everything always? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. Is everything by everything? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. Is everything in all? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. Is everything, having made it unsuitable? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. That which is not, is that also? It should not be said so. Is everything? Yes. Is it so that the view 'everything is' is wrong view, and the view 'everything is' is right view? It should not be said so. (Abbreviated). Method of Debate. 2. Comparison of Times Does the past exist? Yes. But isn't the past ceased, gone, changed, set, completely set? Yes. If the past is ceased, gone, changed, set, completely set, then surely it should not be said: "The past exists." Does the future exist? Yes. But isn't the future unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared? Yes. If the future is unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared, then surely it should not be said: "The future exists." Does the present exist, is the present unceased, ungone, unchanged, not set, not completely set? Yes. Does the past exist, is the past unceased, ungone, unchanged, not set, not completely set? It should not be said so (etc.). Does the present exist, is the present born, become, produced, manifested, arisen, appeared? Yes. Does the future exist, is the future born, become, produced, manifested, arisen, appeared? It should not be said so (etc.). Does the past exist, is the past ceased, gone, changed, set Is it utterly gone? Yes. Is the present, the present, ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly gone? It should not be said so. Is the future, the future, unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared? Yes. Is the present, the present, unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared? It should not be said so. 284. Does past form exist? Yes. But is not past form ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly gone? Yes. If past form is ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly gone, then indeed it should not be said – "Past form exists." Does future form exist? Yes. But is not future form unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared? Yes. If future form is unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared, then indeed it should not be said – "Future form exists." Does present form exist, present form unceased, ungone, unchanged, not set, not utterly gone? Yes. Does past form exist, past form unceased, ungone, unchanged, not set, not utterly gone? It should not be said so. Does present form exist, present form born, become, produced, manifested, arisen, appeared? Yes. Does future form exist, future form born, become, produced, manifested, arisen, appeared? It should not be said so. Does past form exist, past form ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly gone? Yes. Does present form exist, present form ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly gone? It should not be said so. Does future form exist, future form unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unarisen, unappeared...? Has appeared? Yes. Is there present form? Is present form unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unappeared? It should not be said so. Is there past feeling, past perception, past formations, past consciousness? Yes. But isn't past consciousness ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly set? Yes. If past consciousness is ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly set, then truly it should not be said – "There is past consciousness." Is there future consciousness? Yes. But isn't future consciousness unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unappeared? Yes. If future consciousness is unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unappeared, then truly it should not be said – "There is future consciousness." Is there present consciousness? Is present consciousness unceased, ungone, unchanged, unset, not utterly set? Yes. Is there past consciousness? Is past consciousness unceased, ungone, unchanged, unset, not utterly set? It should not be said so. Is there present consciousness? Is present consciousness born, become, produced, manifested, appeared? Yes. Is there future consciousness? Is future consciousness born, become, produced, manifested, appeared? It should not be said so. Is there past consciousness? Is past consciousness ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly set? Yes. Is there present consciousness? Is present consciousness ceased, gone, changed, set, utterly set? It should not be said so. Is there future consciousness? Is future consciousness unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unappeared? Yes. Is there present consciousness? Is present consciousness unborn, unbecome, unproduced, unmanifested, unappeared? It should not be said so. "Present" or "form", or "form" or "present", making present form disagreeable, are these of one meaning, the same, of equal aspect, of that nature? Yes. Does present form, while ceasing, abandon its present state? Yes. Does it abandon its form-nature? It should not be said thus... etc. Or "present" as form, or "form" as present, having made present form disagreeable, does it arise in the same sense, in the same way, in the same aspect, in the same proportion? Yes. Does present form, ceasing, not abandon its form-nature? Yes. Does it not abandon its present-nature? It should not be said thus... etc. Or "white" as cloth, or "cloth" as white, having made white cloth disagreeable, does it arise in the same sense, in the same way, in the same aspect, in the same proportion? Yes. Does white cloth, being dyed, abandon its white-nature? Yes. Does it abandon its cloth-nature? It should not be said thus. Or "white" as cloth, or "cloth" as white, having made white cloth disagreeable, does it arise in the same sense, in the same way, in the same aspect, in the same proportion? Yes. Does white cloth, being dyed, not abandon its cloth-nature? Yes. Does it not abandon its white-nature? It should not be said thus... etc. 286. Does form not abandon its form-nature? Yes. Is form permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? It should not be said thus. But if form does not abandon its form-nature, is form impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If form is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change, then indeed it should not be said: "Form does not abandon its form-nature." Does Nibbana not abandon its Nibbana-nature, is Nibbana permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Does form not abandon its form-nature, is form permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? It should not be said thus... etc. Does form not abandon its form-nature, is form impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Does Nibbana not abandon its Nibbana-nature, is Nibbana impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? It should not be said thus... etc. Is the past existing, does the past not abandon its past-nature? Yes. Does the future exist, does the future not abandon its future-nature? It should not be said so. Does the past exist, does the past not abandon its past-nature? Yes. Does the present exist, does the present not abandon its present-nature? It should not be said so... Does the future exist, does the future abandon its future-nature? Yes. Does the past exist, does the past abandon its past-nature? It should not be said so... Does the present exist, does the present abandon its present-nature? Yes. Does the past exist, does the past abandon its past-nature? It should not be said so. Does the past exist, does the past not abandon its past-nature? Yes. Is the past permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? It should not be said so... Is not the past impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. If the past is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change, then it should not be said: "The past exists, the past does not abandon its past-nature." Nibbana exists, Nibbana does not abandon its Nibbana-nature, is Nibbana permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Does the past exist, does the past not abandon its past-nature, is the past permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? It should not be said so... Does the past exist, does the past not abandon its past-nature, is the past impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? Yes. Nibbana exists, Nibbana does not abandon its Nibbana-nature, is Nibbana impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change? It should not be said so... Past form exists, past form does not abandon its past-nature? Yes. Future form exists, future form does not abandon its future-nature? It should not be said so... past Is there past form? Does past form not abandon its past state? Yes. Is there present form? Does present form not abandon its present state? It should not be said thus (etc.). Is there future form? Does future form abandon its future state? Yes. Is there past form? Does past form abandon its past state? It should not be said thus (etc.). Is there present form? Does present form abandon its present state? Yes. Is there past form? Does past form abandon its past state? It should not be said thus (etc.). Is there past form? Does past form not abandon its past state? Yes. Is past form permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? It should not be said thus (etc.). Is not past form impermanent, unstable, not eternal, subject to change? Yes. If past form is impermanent (etc.), subject to change, then it should certainly not be said: "There is past form; past form does not abandon its past state." Is there Nibbana? Does Nibbana not abandon its Nibbana-state? Is Nibbana permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change? Yes. Is there past form? Does past form not abandon its past state? Is past form permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change?