English
English version Question: Is there rebirth into the animal realm (Pang-sheng-qu) after dying in hell (Nai-luo-jia, Naraka)? Answer: Yes. Refutation: You are contradicting yourself. If the five realms (Wu-qu) are definitively established and do not intermingle, that is, the hell realm to the human realm, with a definitively separate hell realm and a definitively separate human realm, then it should not be said that there is rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell. What you say is unreasonable. Refutation: If you now say that there is rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell, then it should not be said that these five realms are definitively established and do not intermingle, that is, the hell realm to the human realm, with a definitively separate hell realm and a definitively separate human realm; saying that these five realms are definitively established and do not intermingle, that is, the hell realm to the human realm, with a definitively separate hell realm and a definitively separate human realm, is unreasonable. Answer: There is definitely rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell. Counter-question: Do you agree with this? That beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm. Answer: I do not agree. Refutation: You are contradicting yourself. If there is definitely rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell, then it should be said that beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm; what you say is unreasonable. Refutation: If you do not say that beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm, then it should not be said that there is definitely rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell; saying that there is definitely rebirth into the animal realm after dying in hell is unreasonable. Question: If it is said that beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm. Counter-question: Do you agree with this? That hell (Nai-luo-jia, Naraka) is the animal realm (Pang-sheng-qu). Answer: I do not agree. Refutation: You are contradicting yourself. If beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm, then it should be said that hell is the animal realm; what you say is unreasonable. Refutation: If you do not say that hell is the animal realm, then it should not be said that beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm; saying that beings in hell are the same as beings in the animal realm is unreasonable. Question: If it is said that beings in hell are different from beings in the animal realm. Counter-question: Do you agree with this? That after hell (Nai-luo-jia, Naraka) ceases, there is a separate rebirth into the animal realm (Pang-sheng-qu). Answer: I do not agree. Refutation: You are contradicting yourself. If beings in hell are different from beings in the animal realm, then it should be said that after hell ceases, there is a separate rebirth into the animal realm; what you say is unreasonable. If you do not say that after hell ceases, there is a separate rebirth into the animal realm, then it should not be said that beings in hell are different from beings in the animal realm; saying that beings in hell are different from beings in the animal realm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
于彼，不应道理。若作是言：不可说彼或彼或异。应问彼言：汝然此不？有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若不可说彼或彼或异，是则应言有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣。如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说有从捺落迦没生傍生趣，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，则不应言不可说彼或彼或异；言不可说彼或彼或异，不应道理。如有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣，如是有从㮈落迦没生于鬼趣亦尔。 补特伽罗论者作如是言：谛义胜义补特伽罗，可得、可证、现有、等有，是故定有补特伽罗。性空论者作是问言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，如是五趣决定安立不相杂乱，谓㮈落迦趣、傍生趣、鬼趣、天趣、人趣，决定别有㮈落迦趣，乃至决定别有人趣。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？有从㮈落迦没生于人趣。彼答言：尔。汝听堕负。若有五趣决定安立不相杂乱，谓㮈落迦趣乃至人趣，决定别有㮈落迦趣，乃至决定别有人趣，则不应说有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，则不应说如是五趣决定安立不相杂乱，谓㮈落迦趣乃至人趣，决定别有㮈落迦趣，乃至决定别有人趣；言此五趣决定安立不相杂乱，谓㮈落迦趣 现代汉语译本： 对于那种说法，是不合道理的。如果有人这样说：‘不能说那个、这个或者不同。’应该问那个人：‘你认可这个吗？’有人从捺落迦（Naraka，地狱）死亡后，转生到傍生趣（Tiryagyoni，畜生道），像这样的话也不能说‘那个、这个或者不同’。回答说：‘不认可。’你听着，你已经失败了。如果不能说‘那个、这个或者不同’，那么就应该说有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到傍生趣。像这样的话也不能说‘那个、这个或者不同’，你这样说是不合道理的。如果你不说有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到傍生趣，像这样的话也不能说‘那个、这个或者不同’，那么就不应该说‘不能说那个、这个或者不同’；说‘不能说那个、这个或者不同’，是不合道理的。如同有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到傍生趣，同样地，有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到鬼趣（Pretagati，饿鬼道）也是如此。 补特伽罗论者（Pudgalavadin，人我论者）这样说：‘在真实的意义上，胜义（Paramartha，胜义谛）的补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗，意为人我）是可以获得、可以证悟、现在存在、平等存在的，所以一定存在补特伽罗。’性空论者（Sunyavadin，空宗论者）这样问：‘你认可这个吗？’所谓的契经（Sutra，佛经）中，世尊（Bhagavan，佛）善妙的语言、善妙的词句、善妙的说法，像这样五趣（Pancagati，五道）决定安立，不互相混杂，即捺落迦趣、傍生趣、鬼趣、天趣（Devagati，天道）、人趣（Manusyagati，人道），决定有分别的捺落迦趣，乃至决定有分别的人趣。’那个人回答说：‘认可。’又问那个人：‘你认可这个吗？’有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到人趣。’那个人回答说：‘认可。’你听着，你已经失败了。如果有五趣决定安立，不互相混杂，即捺落迦趣乃至人趣，决定有分别的捺落迦趣，乃至决定有分别的人趣，那么就不应该说有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到人趣，你这样说是不合道理的。你现在如果说有人从捺落迦死亡后转生到人趣，那么就不应该说像这样五趣决定安立，不互相混杂，即捺落迦趣乃至人趣，决定有分别的捺落迦趣
English
English version: That is not reasonable. If someone says: 'It cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different,' you should ask them: 'Do you accept this?' That someone, having died in Naraka (hell), is reborn in Tiryagyoni (animal realm), it cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different. They answer: 'I do not accept it.' Listen, you are defeated. If it cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different, then it should be said that someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Tiryagyoni. It cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different, your saying this is not reasonable. If you do not say that someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Tiryagyoni, it cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different, then it should not be said that it cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different; saying that it cannot be said that it is either that, this, or different, is not reasonable. Just as someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Tiryagyoni, similarly, someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Pretagati (hungry ghost realm). The Pudgalavadin (personalist) says: 'In the true sense, the Paramartha (ultimate truth) Pudgala (person) is attainable, realizable, existent, and equally existent, therefore, the Pudgala certainly exists.' The Sunyavadin (emptiness theorist) asks: 'Do you accept this?' In the Sutra (Buddhist scripture), the Bhagavan's (Buddha) good words, good phrases, and good teachings, the five Gatis (realms of existence) are definitely established, not mixed up, namely Naraka Gati, Tiryagyoni Gati, Preta Gati, Deva Gati (god realm), and Manusya Gati (human realm), there is definitely a separate Naraka Gati, and so on, up to a definitely separate Manusya Gati.' They answer: 'I accept it.' They are asked again: 'Do you accept this?' That someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Manusya Gati.' They answer: 'I accept it.' Listen, you are defeated. If the five Gatis are definitely established, not mixed up, namely Naraka Gati up to Manusya Gati, there is definitely a separate Naraka Gati, and so on, up to a definitely separate Manusya Gati, then it should not be said that someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Manusya Gati, your saying this is not reasonable. If you now say that someone, having died in Naraka, is reborn in Manusya Gati, then it should not be said that the five Gatis are definitely established, not mixed up, namely Naraka Gati up to Manusya Gati, there is definitely a separate Naraka Gati --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
乃至人趣，决定别有㮈落迦趣，乃至决定别有人趣，不应道理。彼作是言：定有从㮈落迦没生于人趣。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼即是彼。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若定有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，是则应说彼即是彼，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼即是彼，则不应言定有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，言定有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，不应道理。若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼㮈落迦即是人趣。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说彼㮈落迦即是人趣，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼㮈落迦即是人趣，则不应说彼即是彼；言彼即是彼，不应道理。又若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？㮈落迦趣于生无漏根、力、觉支无所堪能，入趣有所堪能。彼答言尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？彼无堪能即有堪能。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说彼无堪能即有堪能，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼无堪能即有堪能，则不应说彼即是彼；言彼即是彼，不应道理。若作是言：彼异于彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？㮈落迦断别生人趣。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼异于彼，是则应说㮈落迦断别生人趣，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说㮈落迦断别生人趣，则不应说彼异于彼；言彼异于彼，不应道理。若作是言：不可说彼或 现代汉语译本： 乃至人道，断定说有地狱道，乃至断定说有人道，是不合道理的。如果有人这样说：‘一定有从地狱道死亡而生到人道的。’应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’他就会说：‘就是那个。’回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经输了。如果一定有从地狱道死亡而生到人道的，那么就应该说‘那个就是那个’，你说‘不是这样的’是不合道理的。如果你不说‘那个就是那个’，那么就不应该说‘一定有从地狱道死亡而生到人道的’，说‘一定有从地狱道死亡而生到人道的’是不合道理的。如果有人这样说：‘那个就是那个。’应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’那个地狱道就是人道。回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经输了。如果‘那个就是那个’，那么就应该说‘那个地狱道就是人道’，你说‘不是这样的’是不合道理的。如果你不说‘那个地狱道就是人道’，那么就不应该说‘那个就是那个’；说‘那个就是那个’，是不合道理的。又如果有人这样说：‘那个就是那个。’应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’地狱道对于生起无漏根（anāsrava-mūla，无漏之根）、力（bala，五力）、觉支（bodhyaṅga，七觉支）没有能力，进入人道就有能力。他回答说：‘是的。’再问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’那个没有能力的就是有能力的。回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经输了。如果‘那个就是那个’，那么就应该说‘那个没有能力的就是有能力的’，你说‘不是这样的’是不合道理的。如果你不说‘那个没有能力的就是有能力的’，那么就不应该说‘那个就是那个’；说‘那个就是那个’，是不合道理的。如果有人这样说：‘那个不同于那个。’应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’地狱道断灭后另外生到人道。回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经输了。如果‘那个不同于那个’，那么就应该说‘地狱道断灭后另外生到人道’，你说‘不是这样的’是不合道理的。如果你不说‘地狱道断灭后另外生到人道’，那么就不应该说‘那个不同于那个’；说‘那个不同于那个’，是不合道理的。如果有人这样说：‘不可说那个或者’
English
English version: Even to the realm of humans, to definitively say there is a separate Naraka (hell) realm, even to definitively say there is a human realm, is unreasonable. If someone were to say: 'There is definitely a being who dies from Naraka and is born in the human realm,' one should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' They would say: 'It is that.' If they answer: 'It is not so,' you listen, you are defeated. If there is definitely a being who dies from Naraka and is born in the human realm, then it should be said 'that is that,' but you say 'it is not so,' which is unreasonable. If you do not say 'that is that,' then you should not say 'there is definitely a being who dies from Naraka and is born in the human realm'; saying 'there is definitely a being who dies from Naraka and is born in the human realm' is unreasonable. If someone were to say: 'That is that,' one should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' That Naraka realm is the human realm. If they answer: 'It is not so,' you listen, you are defeated. If 'that is that,' then it should be said 'that Naraka realm is the human realm,' but you say 'it is not so,' which is unreasonable. If you do not say 'that Naraka realm is the human realm,' then you should not say 'that is that'; saying 'that is that' is unreasonable. Furthermore, if someone were to say: 'That is that,' one should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' The Naraka realm is incapable of generating anāsrava-mūla (roots of non-outflow), bala (powers), and bodhyaṅga (factors of enlightenment), while entering the human realm is capable. They answer: 'Yes.' Then ask them again: 'Do you affirm this?' That which is incapable is capable. If they answer: 'It is not so,' you listen, you are defeated. If 'that is that,' then it should be said 'that which is incapable is capable,' but you say 'it is not so,' which is unreasonable. If you do not say 'that which is incapable is capable,' then you should not say 'that is that'; saying 'that is that' is unreasonable. If someone were to say: 'That is different from that,' one should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' The Naraka realm ceases and a separate human realm is born. If they answer: 'It is not so,' you listen, you are defeated. If 'that is different from that,' then it should be said 'the Naraka realm ceases and a separate human realm is born,' but you say 'it is not so,' which is unreasonable. If you do not say 'the Naraka realm ceases and a separate human realm is born,' then you should not say 'that is different from that'; saying 'that is different from that' is unreasonable. If someone were to say: 'It is impossible to say that or' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------