Chinese
，一者身受、二者心受，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后领纳二受，一者身受、二者心受，则不应言在于现在；言在现在，不应道理。若言不在过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，受有二种：一者身受；二者心受。如是契经世尊所说，汝便诽谤违越拒逆。若汝诽谤违越拒逆如是世尊所说契经，不应道理。 沙门目连作如是说：过去未来无，现在无为有。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，受有三种：一者乐受；二者苦受；三者不苦不乐受。彼答言：尔。具寿！若时领纳乐等三受，尔时当言在何世？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言在过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若言在未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言在现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后领纳三受，一者乐受、二者苦受、三者不苦不乐受，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后领纳三受，一者乐受、二者苦受、三者不苦不乐受，则不应言在于现在；言在现在，不应道理。若言不在过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，受有三种：一者乐受、二者苦受、三者不苦不乐受。如是契经世尊所说，汝便诽谤违越拒逆。若汝诽谤违越拒逆如是世尊所说契经，不应道理。 现代汉语译本： ‘一种是身体感受（身受），一种是心理感受（心受），这种说法不合理。如果说没有一个补特伽罗（pudgala，人），既不是先前的也不是后来的领纳这两种感受，一种是身体感受，一种是心理感受，那么就不应该说这感受存在于现在；说存在于现在，是不合道理的。如果说这感受不在过去、未来、现在，那么经典中世尊（释迦摩尼佛）所说的善语、善词、善说，即感受有两种：一种是身体感受；一种是心理感受，你就是在诽谤、违背、拒绝、否定。如果你诽谤、违背、拒绝、否定世尊所说的这样的经典，是不合道理的。’ 沙门（śrāmaṇa，出家修道者）目连（Maudgalyāyana，佛陀十大弟子之一，以神通著称）这样说：‘过去未来没有，现在无为有。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’经典中世尊善语、善词、善说，感受有三种：一种是乐受（sukha-vedanā，快乐的感受）；一种是苦受（duḥkha-vedanā，痛苦的感受）；一种是不苦不乐受（adukhamasukha-vedanā，非苦非乐的感受）。’他回答说：‘认可。’‘具寿（āyuṣmat，对年长有德者的尊称）！当领纳乐受等三种感受的时候，你应当说在哪个时间？过去、未来、还是现在？’如果说是过去，应该说有过去，不应该说没有过去；说过去没有，是不合道理的。如果说是未来，应该说有未来，不应该说没有未来；说未来没有，是不合道理的。如果说是在现在，应该说有一个补特伽罗，既不是先前的也不是后来的领纳这三种感受，一种是乐受，一种是苦受，一种是不苦不乐受，这种说法不合理。如果说没有一个补特伽罗，既不是先前的也不是后来的领纳这三种感受，一种是乐受，一种是苦受，一种是不苦不乐受，那么就不应该说这感受存在于现在；说存在于现在，是不合道理的。如果说这感受不在过去、未来、现在，那么经典中世尊所说的善语、善词、善说，即感受有三种：一种是乐受；一种是苦受；一种是不苦不乐受，你就是在诽谤、违背、拒绝、否定。如果你诽谤、违背、拒绝、否定世尊所说的这样的经典，是不合道理的。’
English
English version: ‘The idea that there are two kinds of feeling, one bodily (kāya-vedanā), the other mental (citta-vedanā), is unreasonable. If you say there is no pudgala (person) who experiences these two kinds of feeling, neither before nor after, one bodily and one mental, then you should not say that it exists in the present; to say it exists in the present is unreasonable. If you say that it is not in the past, future, or present, then you are slandering, contradicting, rejecting, and opposing the well-spoken words of the Blessed One (Bhagavan, the Buddha) in the scriptures, which state that there are two kinds of feeling: one bodily and one mental. If you slander, contradict, reject, and oppose such scriptures spoken by the Blessed One, it is unreasonable.’ The śrāmaṇa (wandering ascetic) Maudgalyāyana (one of the Buddha's chief disciples, known for his supernatural powers) said: ‘The past and future do not exist; the present, being unconditioned, exists.’ He should be asked: ‘Do you accept this? In the scriptures, the Blessed One spoke well, saying that there are three kinds of feeling: one is pleasant feeling (sukha-vedanā), one is painful feeling (duḥkha-vedanā), and one is neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (adukhamasukha-vedanā).’ He replied: ‘I accept.’ ‘Āyuṣmat (venerable one)! When experiencing these three kinds of feeling, such as pleasant feeling, where would you say it exists? In the past, future, or present?’ If he says it is in the past, it should be said that the past exists, and it should not be said that the past does not exist; to say that the past does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it is in the future, it should be said that the future exists, and it should not be said that the future does not exist; to say that the future does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it is in the present, it should be said that there is a pudgala who experiences these three kinds of feeling, neither before nor after, one pleasant, one painful, and one neither-painful-nor-pleasant, which is unreasonable. If you say there is no pudgala who experiences these three kinds of feeling, neither before nor after, one pleasant, one painful, and one neither-painful-nor-pleasant, then you should not say that it exists in the present; to say it exists in the present is unreasonable. If you say that it is not in the past, future, or present, then you are slandering, contradicting, rejecting, and opposing the well-spoken words of the Blessed One in the scriptures, which state that there are three kinds of feeling: one is pleasant feeling, one is painful feeling, and one is neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. If you slander, contradict, reject, and oppose such scriptures spoken by the Blessed One, it is unreasonable.’ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
沙门目连作如是说：过去未来无，现在无为有。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，意、法为缘发生意识。彼答言：尔。具寿！若时意识现起意，于尔时当言在何世？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言在过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若言在未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言在现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，意及意识，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，意及意识，则不应言在于现在；言在现在，不应道理。若言不在过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，意、法为缘发生意识。如是契经世尊所说，汝便诽谤违越拒逆。若汝诽谤违越拒逆如是世尊所说契经，不应道理。 沙门目连作如是说：过去未来无，现在无为有。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，以齿持齿、舌端着腭，复以其心降伏执持调练其心。何所调练？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言调练过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若言调练未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言调练现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，一所调练、一能调练，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非 现代汉语译本 沙门目连（Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana，佛教术语，指释迦牟尼佛的十大弟子之一，以神通著称）这样说：‘过去和未来不存在，只有现在的无为法存在。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’因为契经（Sūtra，佛教经典）中，世尊（Bhagavan，佛的尊称）善于言说，用美好的语言和词句阐述，意识的产生是由于意（Manas，佛教术语，指意识的根源）和法（Dharma，佛教术语，指事物、规律）作为因缘。’如果他回答说：‘是的。’那么，具寿（Āyusmat，对年长比丘的尊称）！当意识生起时，这个‘意’，你认为它存在于哪个时间？过去、未来还是现在？如果他说存在于过去，就应该承认过去存在，不应该说过去不存在；说过去不存在，是不合道理的。如果他说存在于未来，就应该承认未来存在，不应该说未来不存在；说未来不存在，是不合道理的。如果他说存在于现在，那就意味着有一个补特伽罗（Pudgala，佛教术语，指个体、人），他的前后两个心念结合在一起，既有意也有意识，这不合道理。如果他说没有一个补特伽罗，前后两个心念结合在一起，既有意也有意识，那么就不应该说它存在于现在；说它存在于现在，是不合道理的。如果他说它既不存在于过去，也不存在于未来，也不存在于现在，那么这就等于诽谤、违背和否定世尊在经中所说的，意识的产生是由于意和法作为因缘。像这样世尊所说的契经，你却诽谤、违背和否定，这是不合道理的。 沙门目连这样说：‘过去和未来不存在，只有现在的无为法存在。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’因为契经中，世尊善于言说，用美好的语言和词句阐述，用牙齿咬住牙齿、舌尖抵住上颚，然后用内心来降伏、执持和调练自己的心。’他所调练的是什么？过去、未来还是现在？如果他说调练的是过去，就应该承认过去存在，不应该说过去不存在；说过去不存在，是不合道理。如果他说调练的是未来，就应该承认未来存在，不应该说未来不存在；说未来不存在，是不合道理。如果他说调练的是现在，那就意味着有一个补特伽罗，他的前后两个心念结合在一起，一个是被调练的，一个是能调练的，这不合道理。如果他说没有一个补特伽罗，非
English
English version The Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana (one of the ten great disciples of Śākyamuni Buddha, known for his supernatural powers) said thus: 'The past and the future do not exist; only the present unconditioned (Asamskrita) exists.' One should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' Because in the Sūtras (Buddhist scriptures), the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, an epithet of the Buddha) speaks well, with good words and phrases, that consciousness arises due to mind (Manas, the faculty of thought and intention) and Dharma (teachings or phenomena) as conditions.' If he answers: 'Yes,' then, Venerable (Āyusmat, an honorific for senior monks)! When consciousness arises, in which time do you say this 'mind' exists? In the past, the future, or the present? If he says it exists in the past, one should acknowledge that the past exists, and not say that the past does not exist; saying that the past does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it exists in the future, one should acknowledge that the future exists, and not say that the future does not exist; saying that the future does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it exists in the present, then it implies that there is a Pudgala (individual) whose two successive thoughts are combined, having both mind and consciousness, which is unreasonable. If he says there is no Pudgala, whose two successive thoughts are combined, having both mind and consciousness, then one should not say that it exists in the present; saying that it exists in the present is unreasonable. If he says it exists neither in the past, nor in the future, nor in the present, then it is equivalent to slandering, contradicting, and rejecting what the Bhagavan said in the Sūtras, that consciousness arises due to mind and Dharma as conditions. Like this, the Sūtras spoken by the Bhagavan, you slander, contradict, and reject, which is unreasonable. The Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana said thus: 'The past and the future do not exist; only the present unconditioned exists.' One should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' Because in the Sūtras, the Bhagavan speaks well, with good words and phrases, 'Clenching the teeth, pressing the tongue against the palate, and with his mind, he subdues, holds, and trains his mind.' What does he train? The past, the future, or the present? If he says he trains the past, one should acknowledge that the past exists, and not say that the past does not exist; saying that the past does not exist is unreasonable. If he says he trains the future, one should acknowledge that the future exists, and not say that the future does not exist; saying that the future does not exist is unreasonable. If he says he trains the present, then it implies that there is a Pudgala whose two successive thoughts are combined, one being trained and one being the trainer, which is unreasonable. If he says there is no Pudgala, no --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
前非后二心和合，一所调练、一能调练，则不应言调练现在；言调练现在，不应道理。若言不调练过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，以齿持齿、舌端着腭，复以其心降伏执持调练其心。如是契经，汝便诽谤违越拒逆。若汝诽谤违越拒逆如是世尊所说契经，不应道理。 沙门目连作如是说：过去未来无，现在无为有。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为彼具寿补穑揭罗娑利苾刍说，有十八意近行，名为士夫。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：具寿！若时眼见色已，随顺喜处诸色近行，尔时十七余意近行当言在何世？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言在过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若言在未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言在现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后有十八意近行同时现行，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后有十八意近行同时现行，则不应言在于现在；言在现在，不应道理。若言不在过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，为彼具寿补穑揭罗娑利苾刍，说有十八意近行，名为士夫。如是契经世尊所说，汝便诽谤违越拒逆。若汝诽谤违越拒逆如是世尊所说契经，不应道理。 识身足论目乾连蕴第一中第四嗢拖南 现代汉语译本 如果说过去和未来两种心识状态与现在的心识状态相互结合，那么，要么是过去和未来调练现在，要么是现在调练过去和未来。如果说是过去和未来调练现在，就不应该说现在正在被调练；如果说现在正在被调练，这种说法就不合道理。如果说过去、未来、现在都没有被调练，那么就等于诽谤、违背和否定了世尊在经典中善妙的言语、词句和教说——世尊用牙齿咬住牙齿，舌尖抵住上颚，用他的心来降伏、执持和调练他的心。你诽谤、违背和否定了世尊所说的这样的经典，这是不合道理的。 沙门（Śrāmaṇa）目连（Maudgalyāyana）这样说：过去和未来不存在，只有现在的无为法存在。应该问他：你认可这个说法吗？在经典中，世尊用善妙的言语、词句和教说，为补穑揭罗娑利（Puṣkarasāri）比丘（bhikṣu）说了十八种意近行，称之为士夫（puruṣa）。他回答说：是的。再问他：具寿（āyuṣmat）！当眼睛看到颜色之后，随顺于令人喜爱的颜色而产生各种意近行时，其余的十七种意近行应该说是在哪个时间段？过去、未来还是现在？如果说是在过去，就应该说有过去，不应该说没有过去；说过去没有，这种说法不合道理。如果说是在未来，就应该说有未来，不应该说没有未来；说未来没有，这种说法不合道理。如果说是在现在，就应该说有一个补特伽罗（pudgala），在没有先后顺序的情况下，十八种意近行同时发生，这不合道理。如果说没有一个补特伽罗，在没有先后顺序的情况下，十八种意近行同时发生，那么就不应该说意近行存在于现在；说存在于现在，这种说法不合道理。如果说不在过去、未来、现在，那么就等于诽谤、违背和否定了世尊在经典中用善妙的言语、词句和教说，为补穑揭罗娑利（Puṣkarasāri）比丘（bhikṣu）所说的十八种意近行，称之为士夫（puruṣa）。你诽谤、违背和否定了世尊所说的这样的经典，这是不合道理的。 《识身足论（Vijñānakāya-pāda）》目乾连蕴（Maudgalyāyana-skandha）第一中第四嗢拖南（udāna）