English
English version: If an Arhat (Arhat, an enlightened saint) is in the Realm of Desire (Kāmadhātu, the world where beings are reborn due to desires) and enters the Cessation Attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti, a meditative state where all mental activities cease), in which sentient being's abode (sattva-nikāya, the place where sentient beings reside) should we say he dwells? He would answer: 'There are various bodies and various perceptions.' Venerable Sir (āyusmat, a respectful term for an elder or respected Bhikshu), according to which time (adhvan, time) of thought is it called 'having perception'? Is it the past (atīta)? Is it the future (anāgata)? Or is it the present (pratyutpanna)? If it is said to be according to the past, then it should be said that there is a past, and it should not be said that there is no past; saying that there is no past is unreasonable. If it is said to be according to the future, then it should be said that there is a future, and it should not be said that there is no future; saying that there is no future is unreasonable. If it is said to be according to the present, then it should not be said that he is now entering the Cessation Attainment; saying that he is now entering the Cessation Attainment is unreasonable. If it is said that it is not according to the past, future, or present, then the Arhat being in the Realm of Desire and entering the Cessation Attainment, it should be said that there is no perception (asaṃjñā), it should be said that there are non-percipient beings (asaṃjñā sattva), it should be said that he dwells among non-percipient beings. The Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana (Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana, a famous disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha, known for his supernatural powers) says thus: 'The past and future do not exist, only the present unconditioned (asaṃskṛta, the uncreated and unceasing state of Nirvana) exists.' He should be asked: 'Do you agree with this statement?' Because in the Sutras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures), the Blessed One (Bhagavān, an epithet of the Buddha) speaks well, speaks eloquently, and speaks correctly, that all sentient beings abide by food. He would answer: 'Yes.' Venerable Sir! What food should it be said that the gods of the Realm of Non-Perception (Asaṃjñasattvadeva, deities residing in the Realm of Non-Perception) have? He would answer: 'There is the food of contact (sparśa-āhāra, nourishment obtained through sensory contact), the food of volition (mano-saṃcetana-āhāra, nourishment obtained through will and thought), the food of intention (cetana-āhāra, nourishment obtained through intention), and the food of consciousness (vijñāna-āhāra, nourishment obtained through consciousness).' Venerable Sir! In which time should it be said that these foods exist at that time? Is it the past? Is it the future? Or is it the present? If it is said to be in the past, then it should be said that there is a past, and it should not be said that there is no past; saying that there is no past is unreasonable. If it is said to be in the future, then it should be said that there is a future, and it should not be said that there is no future; saying that there is no future is unreasonable. If it is said to be in the present, then it should not be said that there are non-percipient beings; saying that there are non-percipient beings is unreasonable. If it is said that it is not in the past, future, or present, then in the Sutras, the Blessed One speaks well, speaks eloquently, and speaks correctly, that all sentient beings abide by food. Like this, the Sutras spoken by the Blessed One, you are slandering, contradicting, and rejecting. If you slander, contradict, and reject the Sutras spoken by the Blessed One in this way, it is unreasonable. The Śrāmaṇa Maudgalyāyana says thus: 'The past and future do not exist, only the present unconditioned exists.' He should be asked: 'Do you agree with this statement?' Because --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
契经中世尊善语善词善说，有六识身，眼识、耳识、鼻识、舌识、身识、意识。彼答言：尔。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓有能于眼识已观、今观、当观，是无常、是苦、是空、是无我。已观、今观、当观，彼因是因、是集、是生、是缘，彼灭是灭、是静、是妙、是离，能断彼道是道、是如、是行、是出。彼答言：尔。为何所观？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言观过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若言观未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言观现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，一是所观、一是能观，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，一是所观、一是能观，则不应说观于现在；言观现在，不应道理。若言不观过去、未来、现在，是则应无能于眼识已观、今观、当观，是无常、是苦、是空、是无我。已观、今观、当观，彼因是因、是集、是生、是缘，彼灭是灭，是静，是妙，是离，能断彼道是道、是如、是行、是出。若无能观，则应无能已厌、今厌、当厌。若无能厌，则应无能已离染、今离染、当离染。若无能离染，则应无能已解脱、今解脱、当解脱。若无能解脱，则应无能已般涅槃、今般涅槃、当般涅槃。如眼识，如是耳识、鼻识、舌识、身识、意 识亦尔。 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，是诸苾刍应断诸漏。彼答言：尔。为何所断？过去耶、未来耶、现在耶？若言断过去，应说有过去，不应无过去；言过去无，不应道理。若断未来，应说有未来，不应无未来；言未来无，不应道理。若言断现在，应说有一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，一是所断、一是能断，此不应理。若言无一补特伽罗，非前非后二心和合，一是所断、一是能断，则不应说断于现在；言断现在，不应道理。若言不断过去、未来、现在，是则经中世尊善语善词善说，是诸苾刍应断诸漏。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。 识身足论补特伽罗蕴第二之一第一嗢拖南颂初 趣补特伽罗， 八种与三聚， 三种自造作， 见闻觉知后。 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，谓捺落迦趣、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 现代汉语译本： 识也是如此。 沙门目连这样说：过去和未来没有，现在和无为才有。应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’ 经文中，世尊善于言辞，善于表达，善于解说，说‘诸位比丘应该断除各种烦恼。’ 他回答说：‘是的。’ 那么，要断除什么呢？是过去、未来还是现在？如果说是断除过去，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。如果说是断除未来，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。如果说是断除现在，就应该承认有一个补特伽罗（pudgala，人或个体），不是前念也不是后念，两种心念和合，一个是所要断除的，一个是能断除的，这不合逻辑。如果说没有一个补特伽罗，不是前念也不是后念，两种心念和合，一个是所要断除的，一个是能断除的，那么就不应该说断除现在；说断除现在，是不合道理的。如果说不断除过去、未来、现在，那么经文中世尊善于言辞，善于表达，善于解说，说‘诸位比丘应该断除各种烦恼’，你就是诽谤、违背、抗拒世尊所说的经文。如果你诽谤、违背、抗拒世尊所说的经文，是不合道理的。 《识身足论》补特伽罗蕴第二之一第一嗢拖南颂的开头： 趣向补特伽罗（pudgala，人或个体），八种和三聚，三种是自己造作，见闻觉知之后。 补特伽罗论者这样说：真实的、殊胜的补特伽罗（pudgala，人或个体），可以获得、可以证悟、现在存在、平等存在，因此一定有补特伽罗。性空论者这样问：‘你认可这个说法吗？’ 经文中，世尊善于言辞，善于表达，善于解说，说‘像这样五趣决定安立，不互相混杂’，即捺落迦趣（naraka-gati，地狱道）、傍生趣（tiryagyoni-gati，畜生道）、鬼趣（preta-gati，饿鬼道）、天趣（deva-gati，天道）、人趣（manusya-gati，人道）。决定有单独的捺落迦趣，乃至决定有单独的人趣。’ 他回答说：‘是的。’ 又问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’ 有从捺落迦
English
English version: Cognition is also like that. Shramana Maudgalyayana says thus: 'The past and future do not exist; only the present and the unconditioned exist.' One should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' In the sutras, the World-Honored One speaks well, expresses well, and explains well, saying, 'All bhikshus (bhiksu, monks) should eliminate all defilements.' He replies: 'Yes.' Then, what is to be eliminated? Is it the past, the future, or the present? If he says it is eliminating the past, then it should be acknowledged that the past exists; it should not be said that the past does not exist. Saying the past does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it is eliminating the future, then it should be acknowledged that the future exists; it should not be said that the future does not exist. Saying the future does not exist is unreasonable. If he says it is eliminating the present, then it should be acknowledged that there is a pudgala (pudgala, person or individual), neither prior nor subsequent thought, two mind-moments combined, one to be eliminated and one that eliminates, which is illogical. If it is said that there is no pudgala, neither prior nor subsequent thought, two mind-moments combined, one to be eliminated and one that eliminates, then it should not be said to eliminate the present; saying to eliminate the present is unreasonable. If it is said that the past, future, and present are not eliminated, then the World-Honored One in the sutras speaks well, expresses well, and explains well, saying, 'All bhikshus should eliminate all defilements.' Thus, you are slandering, violating, and rejecting the sutras spoken by the World-Honored One. If you slander, violate, and reject the sutras spoken by the World-Honored One, it is unreasonable. The beginning of the first Udanasong of the second of the Pudgala Skandha in the Vijnanakaya-pada-shastra: Inclining towards the pudgala (pudgala, person or individual), eight kinds and three aggregates, three kinds are self-created, after seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing. The Pudgala theorists say thus: 'The true, the ultimate pudgala (pudgala, person or individual), can be attained, can be realized, exists now, exists equally, therefore there definitely is a pudgala.' The Emptiness theorists ask thus: 'Do you affirm this?' In the sutras, the World-Honored One speaks well, expresses well, and explains well, saying, 'Thus, the five destinies are definitely established, not intermingled,' namely the naraka-gati (naraka-gati, hell realm), the tiryagyoni-gati (tiryagyoni-gati, animal realm), the preta-gati (preta-gati, hungry ghost realm), the deva-gati (deva-gati, heaven realm), and the manusya-gati (manusya-gati, human realm). There is definitely a separate naraka-gati, and even definitely a separate manusya-gati.' He replies: 'Yes.' Again, he is asked: 'Do you affirm this?' There is from naraka --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
没生傍生趣？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傍生趣。汝作是言，不应道理。汝今若说有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣，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：定有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣。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傍生趣，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傍生趣；言定有从㮈落迦没生傍生趣，不应道理。若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼㮈落迦即傍生趣。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说彼㮈落迦即傍生趣，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼㮈落迦即傍生趣，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？㮈落迦断别生傍生。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼异彼，是则应说㮈落迦断别生傍生，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说㮈落迦断别生傍生，则不应说彼异于彼；言彼异 现代汉语译本 问：有没有从地狱（㮈落迦，Naraka）死后投生到畜生道（傍生趣）的？ 答：有。 反驳：你这是自相矛盾。如果五道（五趣）是决定安立、互不混杂的，也就是地狱道乃至人道，决定是独立的地狱道，乃至决定是独立的人道，那么就不应该说有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的。你这样说，是不合道理的。 反驳：如果你现在说有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的，那么就不应该说这五道是决定安立、互不混杂的，也就是地狱道乃至人道，决定是独立的地狱道，乃至决定是独立的人道；说这五道是决定安立、互不混杂的，也就是地狱道乃至人道，决定是独立的地狱道，乃至决定是独立的人道，是不合道理的。 答：肯定有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的。 反问：你认可这个吗？地狱众生就是畜生道的众生。 答：不认可。 反驳：你这是自相矛盾。如果肯定有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的，那么就应该说地狱众生就是畜生道的众生；你这样说，是不合道理的。 反驳：如果你不说地狱众生就是畜生道的众生，那么就不应该说肯定有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的；说肯定有从地狱死后投生到畜生道的，是不合道理的。 问：如果说地狱众生就是畜生道的众生。 反问：你认可这个吗？地狱（㮈落迦，Naraka）就是畜生道（傍生趣）。 答：不认可。 反驳：你这是自相矛盾。如果地狱众生就是畜生道的众生，那么就应该说地狱就是畜生道，你这样说不合道理。 反驳：如果你不说地狱就是畜生道，那么就不应该说地狱众生就是畜生道的众生；说地狱众生就是畜生道的众生，是不合道理的。 问：如果说地狱众生不同于畜生道的众生。 反问：你认可这个吗？地狱（㮈落迦，Naraka）断灭后会单独投生到畜生道（傍生趣）。 答：不认可。 反驳：你这是自相矛盾。如果地狱众生不同于畜生道的众生，那么就应该说地狱断灭后会单独投生到畜生道，你这样说不合道理。如果你不说地狱断灭后会单独投生到畜生道，那么就不应该说地狱众生不同于畜生道的众生；说地狱众生不同于畜生道的众生