Chinese
修施故，不得上食，微妙璎珞。若人欲求世间之乐及无上乐，应当乐施。智者当观生死无边，受乐亦尔，是故应为断生死施，不求受乐。复作是观：虽复富有四天下地，受无量乐，犹不知足，是故我应为无上乐而行布施，不为人天。何以故？无常故，有边故。 “善男子！若有说言：施主、受者及受乐者皆是五阴，如是五阴即是无常，舍施五阴，谁于彼受？虽无受者，善果不灭，是故无有施者、受者。应反问言：有施、受不？若言施即是施，受即我者。复应语言：我亦如是，施即是施，我即五阴。若言：施阴，此处无常，谁于彼受？谛听！谛听！当为汝说。种子常耶？是无常乎？若言常者，云何子灭而生于芽？若见是过，复言无常，复当语言：若无常者，子时与粪、水、土等功，云何而令芽得增长？若言子虽无常，以功业故而得芽果，应言五阴亦复如是。若言子中先已有芽，人、功、水、粪为作了因。是义不然！何以故？了因所了，物无增减，多则多住，少则少住。而今水、粪芽则增长，是故本无今有。若言了因二种：一、多，二、少。多则见大，少则见小；犹如然灯，明多见大，明少见小。是义不然，何以故？犹如一种，多与水粪，不能一时一日增长人等过人。若言了因虽有二种，要待时节，物少了少，物多 现代汉语译本：因为修习布施的缘故，不会得到上好的食物和精美的璎珞（装饰品）。如果有人想要追求世间的快乐以及无上的快乐，就应当乐于布施。有智慧的人应当观察生死是无边无际的，享受快乐也是如此，因此应当为了断绝生死而布施，不求享受快乐。再作这样的观察：即使拥有整个四天下的土地，享受无量的快乐，仍然不知满足，因此我应当为了无上的快乐而行布施，不为了人天福报。为什么呢？因为人天福报是无常的，有尽头的。 ‘善男子！如果有人说：施主、受者以及享受快乐的人都是五阴（色、受、想、行、识），既然这五阴都是无常的，舍弃了布施的五阴，谁又在那里接受果报呢？即使没有受者，善果也不会消灭，所以没有施者、受者。’应当反问他说：‘有布施、接受这回事吗？’如果他说：‘布施就是布施，接受的就是我。’就应当再对他说：‘我也是这样认为，布施就是布施，我就是五阴。’如果他说：‘布施的五阴，在这里是无常的，谁又在那里接受果报呢？’仔细听！仔细听！我将为你解说。种子是常住不变的吗？还是无常变化的呢？如果说是常住不变的，那么为什么种子会灭亡而生出芽呢？如果看到这个过失，又说是无常变化的，就应当再对他说：‘如果说是无常变化的，那么种子在种子时期与粪、水、土等的作用，又怎么能使芽得到增长呢？’如果他说：‘种子虽然是无常的，因为功业的缘故而得到芽果。’就应当说：‘五阴也是这样。’如果他说：‘种子中本来就已经有芽，人、功、水、粪只是作为助缘。’这个说法是不对的！为什么呢？助缘所帮助的，事物不会增加或减少，多的就多存在，少的就少存在。而现在水、粪使芽增长，所以是本来没有现在才有的。如果他说助缘有两种：一种是多的，一种是少的。多的就看到大，少的就看到小；就像点灯一样，光明多就看到大，光明少就看到小。’这个说法是不对的，为什么呢？就像同一种东西，给它再多的水粪，也不能一时一日就增长超过人。如果他说助缘虽然有两种，还要等待时节，东西少了就少增长，东西多了
English
English version: Because of practicing giving, one will not obtain the finest food and exquisite ornaments (璎珞, *yingluo*, decorative necklaces). If someone desires to seek worldly pleasures and supreme bliss, they should delight in giving. Wise individuals should observe that birth and death are boundless, and so is the enjoyment of pleasure; therefore, one should give in order to sever birth and death, not seeking to enjoy pleasure. Furthermore, contemplate thus: even if one possesses the entire land of the four continents (四天下, *sì tiānxià*, the world system in Buddhist cosmology) and enjoys immeasurable pleasure, one would still not be satisfied. Therefore, I should practice giving for the sake of supreme bliss, not for the rewards of humans and gods. Why? Because the rewards of humans and gods are impermanent and finite. 'Good man! If someone says: 'The giver, the receiver, and the one who enjoys pleasure are all the five skandhas (五阴, *wǔyīn*, form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Since these five skandhas are impermanent, having relinquished the five skandhas of giving, who then receives the karmic reward there?' Even if there is no receiver, the good result will not perish; therefore, there is no giver or receiver.' One should retort by asking: 'Is there giving and receiving?' If he says: 'Giving is giving, and the receiver is me,' then one should say: 'I am also like that; giving is giving, and I am the five skandhas.' If he says: 'The five skandhas of giving are impermanent here; who then receives the karmic reward there?' Listen carefully! Listen carefully! I will explain it to you. Is the seed permanent or impermanent?' If he says it is permanent, then how can the seed perish and sprout emerge? If he sees this fault and says it is impermanent, then one should say: 'If it is impermanent, then how can the seed, during its seed stage, with the aid of manure, water, soil, etc., cause the sprout to grow?' If he says: 'Although the seed is impermanent, it obtains the sprout and fruit because of karmic actions,' then one should say: 'The five skandhas are also like that.' If he says: 'The sprout is already present in the seed; human effort, water, and manure only act as auxiliary causes (了因, *liǎoyīn*, conditions that reveal or manifest the effect),' this statement is incorrect! Why? Because what is aided by auxiliary causes does not increase or decrease; what is much remains much, and what is little remains little. But now, water and manure cause the sprout to grow; therefore, what was originally absent is now present. If he says that there are two types of auxiliary causes: one is much, and the other is little. Much causes one to see large, and little causes one to see small; like lighting a lamp, much light causes one to see large, and little light causes one to see small,' this statement is incorrect. Why? Like the same thing, giving it more water and manure cannot cause it to grow beyond a person in a single day. If he says that although there are two types of auxiliary causes, one must wait for the season; if there is little, it grows little, and if there is much --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
了多，是故我言了因不增。是义不然！何以故？汝法时常，是故不应作如是说。 “善男子！子异、芽异，虽作得异，相似不断，五阴亦尔。善男子！如子业增芽，芽业增茎，茎业增叶，叶业增花，花业增果；一道五阴，增五道阴，亦复如是。若言如是异作异受，是义汝有，非我所说。何以故？如汝法中，作者是我，受者是身，而复不说异作异受；受不杀戒，即是我也，以是因缘身得妙色，是故汝法受者无因，作者无果，有如是过。若言我作身受，我亦如是，此作彼受。复应问言：汝身、我异，身受饮食，被服、璎珞、妙食因缘得好色力，恶食因缘得弊色力，是好、恶色若属因缘，我何所得？若言我得忧愁欢喜，云何不是异作、异受？譬如有人，为力服酥，是人久服身得大力、上妙好色；有人羸瘦，见之心喜，是人即得大色力不？若言不得，我亦如是；身所作事，我云何得？何以故？不相似故。我法不尔，阴作、阴受，相似不断。 “善男子！若言五阴无常，此不至彼而得受报。是义不然！何以故？我法或有即作即受，或有异作异受，无作无受。即作即受者，阴作阴受；异作异受者，人作天受；无作无受者，作业因缘和合而有，本无自性，何有作受？汝意若谓：异作异受，云何复言相续不断？是义不然！ 现代汉语译本： 你说‘了’已经存在，所以我说‘因’不会增加。这种说法是不对的！为什么呢？因为按照你的理论，‘法’是永恒不变的，所以不应该这样说。 ‘善男子！’种子和芽是不同的，虽然它们的作用不同，但相似性并没有中断，五阴（色、受、想、行、识，构成人的五种要素）也是如此。‘善男子！’比如种子的业力增长为芽，芽的业力增长为茎，茎的业力增长为叶，叶的业力增长为花，花的业力增长为果实；同样，一道五阴，增长为五道（地狱、饿鬼、畜生、人、天）的阴，也是如此。如果说像你那样，不同的作用导致不同的承受，这种说法是你的观点，不是我所说的。为什么呢？因为在你的理论中，作者是‘我’，受者是‘身’，但你又不承认不同的作用导致不同的承受；比如受持不杀戒，那就是‘我’的行为，因为这个因缘，身体才能得到美好的容貌，所以按照你的理论，受者没有原因，作者没有结果，有这样的过失。如果说‘我’做的事情，‘身’来承受，我也同样可以这样说，这个作用导致那个承受。还可以反问你说：你的‘身’和‘我’是不同的，身体接受饮食、穿戴、装饰、美味的食物，因为这些因缘而得到好的容貌和力量，因为恶劣的食物而得到丑陋的容貌和力量，那么这些好的和坏的容貌，如果是属于因缘的，‘我’能得到什么呢？如果说‘我’能得到忧愁和欢喜，为什么不是不同的作用导致不同的承受呢？比如有人为了增强力量而服用酥油，这个人长期服用，身体得到很大的力量和非常美好的容貌；有个人很瘦弱，看到这个人感到高兴，难道这个人就能立刻得到很大的力量和美好的容貌吗？如果说不能得到，我也是一样的道理；身体所做的事情，‘我’怎么能得到呢？为什么呢？因为它们不相似。我的理论不是这样的，阴的作用，阴来承受，相似性并没有中断。 ‘善男子！’如果说五阴是无常的，这个五阴不能到达彼处而得到报应。这种说法是不对的！为什么呢？我的理论中有的是即作即受，有的是异作异受，有的是无作无受。即作即受的，是阴的作用，阴来承受；异作异受的，是人所作的，天来承受；无作无受的，是业的因缘和合而产生，本来没有自性，哪里来的作用和承受呢？如果你认为不同的作用导致不同的承受，为什么又说相续不断呢？这种说法是不对的！
English
English version: You say that 'cessation' already exists, therefore I say that 'cause' does not increase. This is not correct! Why? Because according to your doctrine, 'dharma' is constant, therefore you should not say such a thing. 'Good man!' The seed and the sprout are different, although their functions are different, the similarity is not interrupted, and so are the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, the five elements that constitute a person). 'Good man!' For example, the karma of the seed increases into the sprout, the karma of the sprout increases into the stem, the karma of the stem increases into the leaf, the karma of the leaf increases into the flower, and the karma of the flower increases into the fruit; similarly, one path of the five skandhas increases into the five paths (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) of skandhas. If you say that different actions lead to different receptions, that is your view, not what I say. Why? Because in your doctrine, the actor is 'I' and the receiver is 'body,' but you do not admit that different actions lead to different receptions; for example, taking the precept of not killing, that is the action of 'I,' and because of this cause, the body can obtain beautiful features, so according to your doctrine, the receiver has no cause and the actor has no result, and there is such a fault. If you say that 'I' do the actions and the 'body' receives them, I can also say the same, this action leads to that reception. You can also ask in return: your 'body' and 'I' are different, the body receives food, clothing, ornaments, and delicious food, and because of these causes, it obtains good features and strength, and because of bad food, it obtains ugly features and weakness, so what can 'I' obtain from these good and bad features if they belong to causes and conditions? If you say that 'I' can obtain sorrow and joy, why is it not that different actions lead to different receptions? For example, someone takes ghee to increase strength, and this person takes it for a long time, and the body obtains great strength and very beautiful features; someone is thin and weak, and seeing this person makes them happy, can this person immediately obtain great strength and beautiful features? If you say that they cannot obtain it, I am the same; how can 'I' obtain what the body does? Why? Because they are not similar. My doctrine is not like this, the action of the skandhas is received by the skandhas, and the similarity is not interrupted. 'Good man!' If you say that the five skandhas are impermanent, these skandhas cannot reach the other place and receive retribution. This is not correct! Why? In my doctrine, some are immediately acted upon and immediately received, some are differently acted upon and differently received, and some are neither acted upon nor received. Those that are immediately acted upon and immediately received are the actions of the skandhas, which are received by the skandhas; those that are differently acted upon and differently received are the actions of humans, which are received by gods; those that are neither acted upon nor received are produced by the combination of karmic causes and conditions, and originally have no self-nature, so where do actions and receptions come from? If you think that different actions lead to different receptions, why do you say that they continue uninterrupted? This is not correct! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
何以故？譬如置毒乳中，至醍醐时故能杀人，乳时异故，醍醐亦异，虽复有异次第而生，相似不断，故能害人。五阴亦尔，虽复有异，次第而生，相似不断，是故可言异作异受，即作即受、无作无受者，若离五阴者，无我我所。一切众生颠倒覆心，或说色即是我，乃至识即是我。或有说言：色即是我，其余四阴即是我所，乃至识亦如是。若有说言：离五阴已别有我者，无有是处。何以故？我佛法中色非我也。所以者何？无常、无作、不自在故，是故四阴，不名我所；乃至识亦如是。众缘和合，异法出生，故名为作，实无异作；众缘和合，异法出生，名为受者，实无异受；是故名为无作无受。若汝意谓：异作异受，何故此人作业不彼人受？俱有五阴！是义不然。何以故？异有二种：一者、身异，二者、名异。一者、佛得，二者、天得。佛得、天得身名各异，是因缘故身口应异；身口异故造业亦异；造业异故寿命、色力、安、辩、亦异，是故不得佛得作业，天得受果。虽俱五阴，色名是一，受、想、行异。何以故？佛得受乐，天得受苦，佛得生贪，天得生瞋，是故不得名为相似。色名虽一，其实有异，或有佛得白色，天得黑色。若以名同为一义者，一人生时应一切生，一人死时应一切死！汝若不欲然此义者，是故不得异作 现代汉语译本： 为什么呢？譬如把毒药放在牛奶中，即使到了提炼成醍醐（最上等的乳酪）的时候，仍然能够杀人，因为牛奶时的性质不同，醍醐时的性质也不同，虽然有不同的次第产生，但相似性没有断绝，所以能够害人。五阴（色、受、想、行、识五种构成要素）也是这样，虽然有不同，次第产生，相似性没有断绝，因此可以说异作异受（不同的行为导致不同的结果），即作即受（行为当下就产生结果），无作无受（没有行为就没有结果）。如果离开五阴，就没有‘我’和‘我所’（属于我的东西）。一切众生颠倒错乱，被迷惑的心所蒙蔽，或者说色（物质）就是我，乃至识（意识）就是我。或者有人说：色就是我，其余四阴就是我所，乃至识也是这样。如果有人说：离开五阴之外，另外有一个‘我’，这是不可能的。为什么呢？在我佛法中，色不是我。为什么呢？因为色是无常的、不能自主的、不自在的，因此，其余四阴，不能称为我所；乃至识也是这样。各种因缘和合，不同的法产生，所以称为‘作’（行为），实际上没有不同的‘作’；各种因缘和合，不同的法产生，称为‘受者’（承受者），实际上没有不同的‘受’；因此称为无作无受。如果你认为：异作异受，为什么这个人造业不是那个人受报呢？因为他们都有五阴！这种说法是不对的。为什么呢？‘异’有两种：一是身体不同，二是名字不同。比如，一个是佛得到的，一个是天人得到的。佛得到的和天人得到的身体和名字各不相同，因为这个原因，身口（身体和语言）应该不同；身口不同，造业也不同；造业不同，寿命、色力（容貌和体力）、安（安乐）、辩（辩才）也不同，因此佛得到的造业，天人不能承受其果报。虽然都有五阴，色和名是一样的，但受、想、行是不同的。为什么呢？佛得到的是快乐，天人得到的是痛苦，佛得到的是生起贪欲，天人得到的是生起嗔恨，因此不能称为相似。色和名虽然一样，但实际上是有区别的，比如佛得到的是白色，天人得到的是黑色。如果因为名字相同就认为是一个东西，那么，一个人出生时应该所有人都出生，一个人死亡时应该所有人都死亡！如果你不想承认这种说法，因此就不能说异作（不同的行为）