English
English version Objection: You first stated that all dharmas (everything in the universe) arise from a cause (hetu), but this is not the case. The Tirthikas (non-Buddhist schools) say: Now there are functions of pots, clothes, etc., so it is known that all dharmas arise from causes, because they are established by mutual dependence. The Sva-mata (Buddhist school) says: You say that because there is a result (phala), there is a cause, but this statement is not valid. Why? Because they exist interdependently. If you say there is a cause because you see the function of the result, then the result is also a cause. If the result is a cause, then there is no result. If there is no result, then there is no cause. Therefore, both cause and result are destroyed. If you say it arises from causes such as intention (citta), Isvara (sovereign), time (kala), and direction (dis), then that is an interdependent cause, which is a conditioned dharma (samskrta-dharma). Conditioned dharmas are impermanent (anitya). Isvara, time, and direction exist interdependently, so they cannot be accomplished by a cause. The Tirthika says: What I say is true, the ancient sages of the past all said so, this dharma is definite, and there will never be any difference. The Sva-mata says: You say 'dharmata' (the nature of things is so), this is not a correct statement. As I say, it is different from your dharma. What is in your dharma is not in my dharma. What is in my dharma is not in your dharma. Why? Because you say your dharma is 'dharmata'. If your dharma is like this, then it is only your own. Just your own statement has no reason. If there is no reason, then there is nothing to know. If there is something to know, then you should say a more superior cause. If there is no superior cause, but you say 'dharmata', then there is no reason. The Tirthika says: This is the dharma of my family. The Sva-mata says: You say 'the dharma of my family', this dharma is not established. Your dharma cannot establish itself, how can it establish dharma? If you leave the cause, nothing can be accomplished in the end. Just insisting on one's own dharma is not a correct principle. The Tirthika says: There is no non-existence that is not born of a cause, such as rabbit horns, turtle hair, stone daughters, and empty space flowers. Such non-existence is ultimately unattainable because they are not born of causes and conditions. For example, seeing pressing oil to seek sesame, making bottles to seek mud, it is not possible to use one dharma as a cause to produce multiple dharmas. And things each have their own cause, such as mud can be made into bottles, but cannot be the cause of cloth; thread can be made into cloth, but cannot be the cause of bottles. Use this method to seek other dharmas as well. The Sva-mata says: You say that the cause can produce the result, but the cause cannot produce the result. Is this cause for something to be accomplished, or for something to be destroyed? If the cause is for something to be accomplished, accomplishing you is also --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
成我。若因有所坏。坏我亦坏汝。以何为喻。如火能烧物。烧汝亦烧我。若于彼处热。在此亦复然。复次更明此义。若言有因而成。成汝亦成我。因虽有所生。因法不俱成。汝立声法是常。作要誓说。以何为因。无身是因。以何为喻。虚空为喻。虚空者。无身而常。以是故名声作常。复有异说。名声无常。以何故。声是作法故无常。以何为喻。如瓶因泥轮绳人功水等而成瓶。以作因生故。瓶无常如声从唇齿喉舌众缘生故。声亦无常。非此二因能有所成。汝言真实。其义有成。妄说虚因。理则不立。汝说要誓。有要时无誓。有誓时无要。二字不俱要誓则坏。如因法未生非为因。以灭亦非因。如子未生不名为生。以灭亦非生。以是故无因。外曰。汝虽破因果。我说有我法故。因果则还成。内曰。汝言有我法。以何为体。若以知识为我。知识则无常。知瓶智以灭知叠智始生。若知识非我。我则无知。我若无知。则无苦乐。如是之我。则无体相。若言我与知合故我有知。知与我合故。知亦非知。外曰。有我。所以者何。瓶衣等物。是我所故。当知有我。内曰。有一过故。瓶与有一。不异故有一。若瓶非瓶有一亦应是瓶。是则多瓶。若有一非瓶。是则无瓶。外曰。有一瓶。一故有过。我今立异。舍一过故。内曰。汝说异则无。瓶 有无故无瓶喻。如异比丘异婆罗门。当知无比丘婆罗门。若瓶异有则是无。如刀与鞘。有异可见。瓶有一异。亦应可见。今有一异。不可见故。异义不成。外曰。一异虽坏。现见有瓶。喻如虚空中花。无故不可见。瓶现见故。当知有瓶。内曰。不见。何故不见。汝言现见。为眼见。为识见。若眼见者。死人有眼。亦应见。若识见者。盲人有识。亦应见。若根识一一别不见。和合亦不见。喻如一盲不能见。众盲亦不见。外曰。有瓶有色故有瓶。内曰。汝言有色故有瓶。色与瓶为一为异。瓶色若一。见余色时。亦应见瓶。若色异瓶。瓶非可见。则无瓶。若以见为瓶。瓶在障处。眼不见时。瓶应非瓶若色与瓶一。瓶坏时余色亦应坏。外曰。我法不生不灭。见亦不坏。不见亦不坏。何以故。我法常有故。因中有果。微细不现。以先有故。后得成大。以是故知有因果。内曰。先有不须作。如泥有瓶不须陶师。如缕有叠不须织师。以瓶叠待功匠成故知因中无果。若因中已有果者。则无未来法。若无未来法。则无生灭。无生灭亦无善恶。无善恶亦无作业罪福果报。如是则一切法无。复次若因中先有微细果。而无粗者。是粗便先无而后有。是则生灭。违汝先说。又若微细先有。则非生法。非生法故。则坏三世。三世若无。当知一切法亦 现代汉语译本 有无故无瓶的譬喻。如同其他的比丘（Bhiksu，佛教出家男众）和婆罗门（Brahmana，古印度社会中的祭司阶层）。应当知道没有比丘和婆罗门。如果瓶子是不同的存在，那就是不存在。如同刀和刀鞘。不同是可以看见的。瓶子的一和异也应该可以看见。现在一和异都不可见，所以，‘异’的意义不能成立。外道说：‘一和异虽然被破坏了，但现在明明看见有瓶子。’这好比虚空中的花，因为不存在所以看不见。瓶子现在明明可以看见，所以，应当知道有瓶子。内道说：‘你看不见。为什么看不见？你说现在明明可以看见，是用眼睛看见的，还是用意识看见的？如果是用眼睛看见的，死人有眼睛，也应该能看见。如果是用意识看见的，盲人有意识，也应该能看见。如果根和识各自不能看见，那么和合在一起也不能看见。’这好比一个瞎子不能看见，一群瞎子也不能看见。 外道说：‘因为有瓶子和颜色，所以有瓶子。’内道说：‘你说因为有颜色所以有瓶子，那么颜色和瓶子是一样的还是不同的？如果瓶子的颜色是一样的，看见其他的颜色时，也应该看见瓶子。如果颜色和瓶子是不同的，瓶子就不是可以看见的，那就没有瓶子。如果把看见当作瓶子，瓶子在被遮挡的地方，眼睛看不见时，瓶子应该就不是瓶子。如果颜色和瓶子是一样的，瓶子坏的时候，其他的颜色也应该坏。’外道说：‘我的法不生不灭，看见也不会坏，看不见也不会坏。为什么呢？因为我的法是常有的。因中含有果，虽然微细而不显现，因为先有，所以后来才能变得粗大。因此，可以知道有因果。’内道说：‘如果先有，就不需要制作。如同泥土里有瓶子，就不需要陶师。如同丝线里有布匹，就不需要织师。因为瓶子和布匹需要工匠才能完成，所以知道因中没有果。如果因中已经有果，就没有未来的法。如果没有未来的法，就没有生灭。没有生灭，也就没有善恶。没有善恶，也就没有作业、罪、福和果报。这样，一切法都不存在。’ 再次，如果因中先有微细的果，而没有粗大的果，那么粗大的果就是先没有而后有，这就是生灭，违背了你先前所说。而且，如果微细的果先有，就不是生法。因为不是生法，就破坏了三世（过去、现在、未来）。三世如果不存在，应当知道一切法也不存在。
English
English version There is the analogy of a pot without a cause. Like other Bhiksus (Bhiksu, Buddhist monks) and Brahmanas (Brahmana, the priestly class in ancient Indian society). It should be known that there are no Bhiksus and Brahmanas. If the pot is a different existence, then it is non-existent. Like a knife and its sheath. Difference can be seen. The oneness and difference of the pot should also be visible. Now that oneness and difference are not visible, therefore, the meaning of 'difference' cannot be established. The outsider says: 'Although oneness and difference are destroyed, we clearly see the pot now.' This is like a flower in the sky, which is invisible because it does not exist. The pot is clearly visible now, therefore, it should be known that there is a pot. The insider says: 'You cannot see it. Why can't you see it? You say you can clearly see it now, is it seen with the eyes, or with consciousness? If it is seen with the eyes, then a dead person has eyes, and should also be able to see. If it is seen with consciousness, then a blind person has consciousness, and should also be able to see. If the root and consciousness cannot see separately, then they cannot see together.' This is like one blind person cannot see, and a group of blind people cannot see. The outsider says: 'Because there is a pot and color, there is a pot.' The insider says: 'You say that because there is color, there is a pot, then are the color and the pot the same or different? If the color of the pot is the same, then when seeing other colors, one should also see the pot. If the color and the pot are different, then the pot is not visible, and there is no pot. If seeing is taken as the pot, and the pot is in a place that is blocked, when the eyes cannot see it, the pot should not be a pot. If the color and the pot are the same, when the pot is broken, the other colors should also be broken.' The outsider says: 'My Dharma does not arise or cease, seeing will not be destroyed, and not seeing will not be destroyed. Why? Because my Dharma is constant. The cause contains the effect, although it is subtle and not manifest, because it exists first, it can later become coarse. Therefore, it can be known that there is cause and effect.' The insider says: 'If it exists first, then it does not need to be made. Just as there is a pot in the mud, there is no need for a potter. Just as there is cloth in the thread, there is no need for a weaver. Because the pot and cloth need craftsmen to complete them, it is known that there is no effect in the cause. If there is already an effect in the cause, there is no future Dharma. If there is no future Dharma, there is no arising and ceasing. Without arising and ceasing, there is no good and evil. Without good and evil, there is no action, sin, merit, and karmic retribution. In this way, all Dharmas do not exist.' Again, if there is a subtle effect in the cause first, and there is no coarse effect, then the coarse effect is first non-existent and then existent, this is arising and ceasing, which contradicts what you said earlier. Moreover, if the subtle effect exists first, it is not a Dharma of arising. Because it is not a Dharma of arising, it destroys the three times (past, present, future). If the three times do not exist, it should be known that all Dharmas do not exist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
无。若因中先有果。乳中已有酪。若言先无而后有者。当知是作法。以是故一切法因中先有。更不须作。外曰。若因中先有果是过者今说因中先无。而后果生。离无生灭。是故无过。有生灭故。亦有亦无。内曰。无生有生非一时故。若瓶泥中已有。不须轮绳人功等成。若无如龟毛不可纺织令使有用。以是故。有亦不生。无亦不生。又受身为自生从他生。二俱有过。若自生更何用生。以是故自生无身。若不从自生云何而从他生。若言自他生。是亦俱有过。以是故一切法无生。外曰。若无身。不应有生住灭有为三相。若有有为。则有无为。有为无为成故。一切法亦成。内曰。无有为法。汝言三相。为次第生。为一时生。次第亦有过。一时亦有过。若次第生。生时无住灭。住时无生灭。灭时无生住。以是故不得次第生。又若生有住。生自无体。住何所住。生体自无。住云何有。无生无住。如石女儿。是则无法。若有生住为灭所灭。生住既无。灭何能灭。如坏兔角空有坏名。外曰。汝言生住灭次第不可得。有为相如二头三手不可得。三相亦不可得。若三相一时亦不可得。何以故。若生中有灭。生则非生。若灭中有生。灭则非灭。住中生灭。破亦如是。生灭相违。云何一时。以是故三相次第生不可得。一时生亦不可得。又汝言三 相。为与有为作相。为与无为作相。若与有为作相。生是有为。应有三相。住灭亦尔。如是之相。则为无穷。相若无穷。汝不应说有为法但有三相。要誓则坏。若相相无为。云何有为相而能相无为。外曰。汝若不欲令作有为相应作无为相。何以故。无为遍一切处。无方所故。是故应与无为作相。内曰。无为有方所。我今问汝。虚空为有方所。为无方所。虚空若有方所。应在汝身边。亦在彼身边。若尔便是有分。有分则有边。若言虚空无方所。为汝身遍虚空。虚空遍汝身。若虚空遍汝身。汝身遍虚空。是则有边际。如瓶衣叠等。有边故无常。虚空尔者。亦是无常。又复常因能生常果。因若无常。果云何常。如因泥生瓶。泥无常故。瓶亦无常。有方所故。名为无常。又复汝所言常。有因故常。无因故常。二俱有过。若言从因生是常者。如瓶衣等物。从因生故。皆亦无常。汝若以离因生法是常。我亦以离因生法是无常。若必有离因生法而常者。为是称理言。为是偏党说。今应分明更说其因。外曰。因有二种。作因了因。从作因生是无常。如瓶衣等物。作因生故无常。从了因生法是常。如灯能照闇中众物。闇去物现。非作法故是常。以是故。从作因生者是无常。从了因生者是常。内曰。如瓶等物。现见故是有。无为非现见故是 现代汉语译本：相。是为了与有为法（指有生灭变化的世间法）相应而设立的相，还是为了与无为法（指没有生灭变化的涅槃）相应而设立的相？如果与有为法相应而设立相，那么生是有为法，就应该有三相：生、住、灭。住和灭也同样如此。像这样，相就会无穷无尽。如果相是无穷无尽的，你就不应该说有为法只有三相，这样你的誓言就破灭了。如果相与无为法相应，那么有为法的相怎么能够与无为法相应呢？ 外道说：‘你如果不希望设立有为法的相，就应该设立无为法的相。’为什么呢？因为无为法遍一切处，没有固定的处所。所以应该与无为法相应。 内道说：‘无为法是有处所的。我现在问你，虚空是有处所，还是没有处所？如果虚空有处所，就应该在你身边，也在他身边。如果是这样，虚空就是有部分的，有部分就有边际。如果说虚空没有处所，那么是你的身体遍布虚空，还是虚空遍布你的身体？如果虚空遍布你的身体，你的身体遍布虚空，那么虚空就是有边际的，就像瓶子、衣服、叠起来的东西等。因为有边际，所以是无常的。如果虚空也是这样，那么虚空也是无常的。而且，常的因能够产生常的果。如果因是无常的，果怎么会是常的呢？就像用泥土制造瓶子，因为泥土是无常的，所以瓶子也是无常的。因为有处所，所以被称为无常。’ 外道又说：‘你所说的常，是因为有因而常，还是因为没有因而常？这两种说法都有过失。如果说是从因生而常，就像瓶子、衣服等物，因为是从因生出来的，所以都是无常的。如果你认为离开因所生的法是常，我也认为离开因所生的法是无常。如果必定有离开因所生的法是常的，这是合乎道理的说法，还是偏袒的说法？现在应该分明地说出其中的原因。’ 外道说：‘因有两种：作因和了因。从作因生出来的东西是无常的，比如瓶子、衣服等物，因为是作因生出来的，所以是无常的。从了因生出来的法是常的，比如灯能够照亮黑暗中的东西，黑暗消失，东西显现，这不是制造出来的，所以是常的。因此，从作因生出来的东西是无常的，从了因生出来的东西是常的。’ 内道说：‘像瓶子等物，因为现在可以看见，所以是存在的。无为法不是现在可以看见的，所以是……’