English
English version: If it is said that earth is the cause and condition (hetupratyaya) for the formation of the body, then the other great elements are also the same. Objection: Earth and other elements can also form all things. Why is it said that they only form the body? This is an incorrect statement. If it is not said in this way, then it is a correct statement. Question: What is called 'defeat' (parajaya)? Answer: For example, saying that sound is permanent because it has no shape or color, like space. Rebuttal: Although sound has no shape, it is an object of perception for the sense consciousness (indriyavijnana), having opposition and obstruction, like a pot that is made. But the nature of space is not made. How can space be used as a metaphor for sound? This is called 'defeat'. Furthermore, a pot has shape and can be considered impermanent. Sound has no shape, so how can a pot be used as a metaphor? Rebuttal: Although sound is different from a pot, it is an object of perception for the sense consciousness, heard by the ear, and therefore impermanent. Question: What kind of statement does not fall into the state of 'defeat'? Answer: All conditioned phenomena (samskara) and consciousness (vijnana) are made, so they are impermanent. Nirvana (nirvana) is not made, so it is permanent. Such words have pure meaning and do not belong to the state of 'defeat'. Question: What kind of statements can be refuted? Answer: If the words are inverted, the established reason (hetu) is incorrect, and the metaphors used are different, these can be refuted. For example, saying that 'perception' (samjna) can cut off the bonds of affliction (klesabandhana). The questioner would ask: 'How can perception cut off the bonds of affliction?' Because it was not first stated that wisdom arises from perception, but directly said that perception can cut off the bonds of affliction, this inverted statement can be refuted. Question: For what reason are these words repeated? Answer: Wanting to let people know that establishing the meaning of non-attachment will inevitably fall into the state of 'defeat', that's why it is said. Furthermore, not asking what should be asked, not answering what should be answered; using the three trainings (trayasiksa) but not letting others understand; using the three trainings oneself but not being able to understand them separately, these are all called 'defeat'. Also, debating with others, not noticing the shortcomings in the other's reasoning, and then someone says, 'This reasoning is wrong, don't you know?' then one falls into the state of 'defeat'. Also, turning the other's correct reasoning into a fault also falls into the state of 'defeat'. Also, if someone says that everyone understands, but only oneself does not understand, one also falls into the state of 'defeat'. Questioning is also like this. These states of 'defeat' are the great thorns in debate, deep faults, and should be known and quickly avoided. Question: How many kinds of questions are there? Answer: There are three kinds. First, the statement is the same; second, the meaning is the same; third, the cause is the same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。若诸论者。不以此三为问答者。名为违错。此三答中若少其一则不具足。若言我不广通如此三问。随我所解便当相问。是亦无过。说同者。如言无我。还依此语后方为问。是名语同。义同者。但取其意是名义同。因同者。知他意趣之所因起。是名因同。若能如是名非负处。若言轻疾听者不悟亦堕负处。问曰唯有此等更有余耶。答曰有。所谓语少语多。无义语非时语。义重舍本宗等。悉名负处。若以此等为前人说。亦堕负处。 问曰。云何名为违本宗耶。 答曰。如言识是常法。所以者何。识体二种。一识体生。二识体用。瓶亦二种。一瓶体生。二瓶体用。然识生时即有用故。故名为常。瓶体生已后方有用。故是无常。 难曰。若以生便有用名为常者。灯生时即用应当是常。 答曰。灯为眼见声为耳闻。云何为喻。是舍本宗名堕负处。复次有说神常。何以知之。非根觉故如虚空。不为根觉故常。 难曰。微尘不为根得而是无常。 答曰。神非作故常。微尘造作故无常。难曰。汝前言非觉今言不作。是违本宗。答曰。汝言我违。汝乖我言岂不违乎。难曰如此之相可有斯理。我言违者。汝之所说自乖前义故言违耳。又汝前言。不大分别故我生疑。非我违汝。如是以疑为违。亦堕负处 现代汉语译本：如果那些论辩者，不以这三种方式进行问答，就叫做违背了规则。这三种回答中缺少任何一种都不完整。如果说我不广泛通达这三种提问方式，就按照我所理解的来进行问答，这也是没有过错的。所说相同，比如说了‘无我’，还依据这句话之后才提问，这叫做语言相同。意义相同，只是取其意思，这叫做意义相同。原因相同，知道他人意图的原因，这叫做原因相同。如果能够这样，就不算失败。如果说话轻率快速，听者不明白，也算失败。提问：只有这些吗？还有其他的吗？回答：有。所谓话少、话多、没有意义的话、不合时宜的话、意义重大却舍弃根本宗旨等等，都叫做失败。如果用这些来对前人说，也算失败。 提问：什么叫做违背根本宗旨呢？ 回答：比如，说‘识’是常法（永恒不变的法则）。为什么呢？因为识的本体有两种：一是识的本体产生，二是识的本体作用。瓶子也有两种：一是瓶子的本体产生，二是瓶子的本体作用。然而，识产生的时候就有作用，所以叫做常。瓶子的本体产生之后才有作用，所以是无常。 反驳：如果以产生就有作用就叫做常，那么灯产生的时候就有作用，应当是常。 回答：灯被眼睛看到，声音被耳朵听到，怎么能作为比喻呢？这是舍弃根本宗旨，叫做失败。再次，有人说神（灵魂）是常。凭什么知道呢？因为它不是根（感官）所能觉察的，就像虚空一样。不被根觉察，所以是常。 反驳：微尘（极小的粒子）不被根所感知，但是无常。 回答：神不是被制造出来的，所以是常。微尘是被制造出来的，所以是无常。反驳：你前面说不是觉察，现在说不是制造，这是违背根本宗旨。回答：你说我违背，你歪曲我的话，难道不是违背吗？反驳：像这样的话，可能有这种道理吗？我说违背，是因为你所说的话自己违背了前面的意思，所以说违背。而且你前面说，没有大的分别，所以我产生怀疑，不是我违背你。像这样以怀疑为违背，也算失败。
English
English version: If those debaters do not use these three methods for questioning and answering, it is called a violation. Lacking any one of these three answers is incomplete. If one says, 'I am not widely versed in these three ways of questioning, I will question and answer according to my understanding,' that is also without fault. Saying the same, for example, saying 'no-self' (anatta), and then questioning based on that statement, is called the same in language. The same in meaning, simply taking the meaning, is called the same in meaning. The same in cause, knowing the cause of another's intention, is called the same in cause. If one can do this, it is not considered a defeat. If speaking lightly and quickly, the listener does not understand, it is also considered a defeat. Question: Are there only these? Are there others? Answer: Yes. So-called few words, many words, meaningless words, untimely words, important meaning but abandoning the fundamental principle, etc., are all called defeats. If using these to speak to the person in front, it is also considered a defeat. Question: What is called violating the fundamental principle? Answer: For example, saying 'consciousness' (識) is a permanent dharma (常法 - eternal law). Why? Because the essence of consciousness has two types: one is the arising of the essence of consciousness, and the other is the function of the essence of consciousness. A jar also has two types: one is the arising of the essence of the jar, and the other is the function of the essence of the jar. However, when consciousness arises, it has function, so it is called permanent. After the essence of the jar arises, it then has function, so it is impermanent. Objection: If having function upon arising is called permanent, then when a lamp arises, it has function, it should be permanent. Answer: A lamp is seen by the eye, sound is heard by the ear, how can it be used as a metaphor? This is abandoning the fundamental principle, called a defeat. Furthermore, some say the spirit (神 - soul) is permanent. How is it known? Because it is not perceived by the root (非根覺 - not perceived by the senses), like space. Not being perceived by the root, therefore it is permanent. Objection: A fine dust particle (微塵 - tiny particle) is not perceived by the root, but it is impermanent. Answer: The spirit is not made, therefore it is permanent. A fine dust particle is made, therefore it is impermanent. Objection: You said earlier not perceived, now you say not made, this is violating the fundamental principle. Answer: You say I violate, you distort my words, is that not a violation? Objection: In this way, can there be such a reason? I say violation, because what you say contradicts the previous meaning, therefore I say violation. Moreover, you said earlier, there is no great distinction, therefore I have doubts, it is not I who violate you. Like this, taking doubt as violation, is also considered a defeat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 。 辩正论品第三
Chinese
论者言。若人说有众生乃至亦有寿者命者。何以知之。为根觉故。如无余涅槃不为根觉故无。众生不尔故知是有。神是常法。何以故。如阿罗汉果。唯当时有而前后无故知为无。如第二头第三手等。本无今有故知前无。有已还灭故知后无。神不如是。是以为常。 难曰。如树根地下水。不见言无。阿罗汉者亦复如是。非是无法。汝自不证。立曰不然。水以地障是故不见。今阿罗汉有何障碍而不见乎。是以知无。难曰。汝以第二头第三手不可见故。明无罗汉。是事不然。虽无二头非无第一。言无罗汉乃是悉无。何得为喻。又汝言以无觉知无涅槃者。是亦不然。如大海水不知几渧。可言无耶。若不知渧数而犹有海。涅槃亦然。虽不可觉实自有之。而言无者应说因缘。若不能说。汝义自坏。是则名为如法论也。 复次若以无觉明无涅槃。他则生疑。如夜见树心便生疑。杌耶人耶。当知此树非定人因非定杌因。若令无觉定与涅槃为无因者。不应生疑。又诸业报不可毁灭故有涅槃。所以者何。譬如大火焚烧山林故火是灭因。今此业报是何灭因而得灭耶。若得涅槃则便散坏。立曰。实有灭因。障故不见。难曰。亦有涅槃。但以痴障故不见耳。复次汝今若不分别诸业有灭因者。汝义自坏 现代汉语译本： 辩正论品第三 论者说：‘如果有人说有众生，乃至也有寿者（jīvaka，有生命者），命者（jīva，灵魂）。’凭什么知道呢？因为有根（hetu，原因）和觉（pratyaksa，感觉）的缘故。比如无余涅槃（nirupadhisesa-nirvana，没有任何剩余的涅槃状态）不被感知，所以认为它不存在。众生不是这样，所以知道众生是存在的。神（atman，灵魂）是常法（nitya-dharma，永恒的法则）。为什么呢？比如阿罗汉果（arhat-phala，阿罗汉的果位），只有当时有，而前后都没有，所以认为它不存在。比如第二头、第三手等，本来没有现在有，所以知道之前没有。有了之后又会消灭，所以知道之后也没有。神不是这样，所以是永恒的。 反驳说：‘如同树根在地下的水，因为看不见就说没有，阿罗汉也是这样，并非没有，只是你没有证得。’立论者说：‘不是这样的，水因为有土地的阻碍所以看不见。现在阿罗汉有什么障碍而看不见呢？因此知道阿罗汉是不存在的。’反驳说：‘你用第二头、第三手不可见，来证明没有阿罗汉，这是不对的。虽然没有两个头，但并非没有一个头。说没有阿罗汉，那是完全没有。怎么能用这个来比喻呢？’又你说因为没有感觉，所以没有涅槃，这也是不对的。如同大海水，不知道有多少滴，就可以说没有大海吗？如果不知道滴数，但海仍然存在，涅槃也是这样，虽然不可感知，但确实存在。如果说没有，应该说明原因。如果不能说明，你的理论就站不住脚。’这就是如法的辩论。 进一步说，如果因为没有感觉就说没有涅槃，他人就会产生怀疑。如同夜晚看见树木，心中就会怀疑，是树桩呢还是人呢？应当知道这棵树不是一定是人，也不是一定是树桩。如果认为没有感觉就一定与涅槃没有因果关系，就不应该产生怀疑。而且，诸业报（karma-vipaka，行为的果报）不可毁灭，所以有涅槃。为什么呢？譬如大火焚烧山林，所以火是灭的原因。现在这些业报是什么灭的原因才能灭除呢？如果得到涅槃，就会散坏。’立论者说：‘确实有灭的原因，因为有障碍所以看不见。’反驳说：‘也有涅槃，只是因为愚痴的障碍所以看不见罢了。’进一步说，如果你现在不能分别诸业有灭的原因，你的理论就站不住脚了。