English
English version If a condition can also be an obstruction, then the cause should also be manifested, because both the cause and the condition are obstructed. If it is only said that in the manifestation of the cause, only the effect arises without manifesting the cause, this is unreasonable. It should also be asked whether 'having nature' is an obstructing condition or 'difference' is. If 'having nature' is an obstructing condition, then this 'having nature' should never be manifested, which is unreasonable. The cause is also 'having', why can't it be an obstruction? If it is said that the 'nature' of the effect is an obstructing condition, then this becomes one dharma that is both cause and effect, such as a sprout being the effect of a seed and the cause of a stem, etc. One dharma is both manifested and not manifested, which is unreasonable. Furthermore, I ask you, answer as you please, is the original dharma 'different' or 'not different' from manifestation? If it is 'not different', then the dharma should always be manifested, already manifested and manifested again, which is unreasonable. If it is said to be 'different', then is this manifestation without a cause or with a cause? If it is said to be without a cause, manifestation without a cause is unreasonable. If there is a cause, then it is the 'nature' of the effect that can be manifested, not the 'nature' of the cause, because the unmanifested cause can manifest the effect, which is unreasonable. Like this, because there is no obstructing condition, because there is an obstructing condition, because there is a characteristic, because there is the characteristic of the effect, because manifestation is 'not different', because manifestation is 'different', these are all unreasonable. The third is the theory that the past and future are truly existent. That is, if there is a Śrāmaṇa (ascetic) or a Brahmana (member of the priestly class in ancient India), if in this dharma, due to incorrect thinking, they arise with such a view and establish such a theory: the past and the future are truly existent, their characteristics are accomplished, just like the present is truly existent, not false. What is the cause and condition for arising with such a view and establishing such a theory? It is because of teaching and reason. The teaching is as previously stated. Also, those in this dharma, because they do not properly distinguish the sutras of the Tathagata (Buddha), think that as the sutra says: 'all that exists' is the twelve āyatanas (Dvādaśa āyatana, the totality of the six internal and six external sense bases). These twelve āyatanas are truly existent in their real nature. Moreover, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Blessed One) said that there is past karma, and also said that there is past rūpa (Rūpa, form, matter, color), and there is future rūpa, broadly speaking, even vijñāna (Vijñāna, consciousness) is the same. The reason is that if someone has thinking as their 'nature' and observation as their 'nature', broadly speaking as previously stated. They think like this, if the characteristic of a dharma itself abides, then this dharma is truly existent. If it does not exist in the future, then at that time it should not have received a characteristic. If it does not exist in the past, then at that time it should have lost its own characteristic. If it is like this, the characteristic of each dharma --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
应不成就。由是道理亦非真实故。不应道理。由是思惟。起如是见。立如是论。过去未来性相实有。应审问彼。汝何所欲。去来二相。与现在相。为一为异。若言相一立三世相。不应道理。若相异者。性相实有。不应道理。又汝应说。自意所欲。随三世法。为是常耶。为无常耶。若常相者。堕在三世。不应道理。若无常相。于三世中。恒是实有。不应道理。又今问汝。随汝意答。为计未来法至现在世耶。为彼死已于此生耶。为即住未来。为缘生现在耶。为本无业。今有业耶。为本相不圆满。今相圆满耶。为本异相。今非异相耶。为于未来有现在分耶。若即未法来来至现在者。此便有方所。后与现在应无差别。复应是常。不应道理。若言未来死已现在生者。是即未来不生。于今现在世法本无今生。又未来未生而言死殁不应道理。 现代汉语译本： 如果不是这样成就，那么由此道理来说，过去、未来也不是真实的，这是不合道理的。由于这样的思惟，产生了这样的见解，立下了这样的论断：过去、未来诸法的体性和现象是真实存在的。应该审问他们：‘你们想要怎样？过去、未来二相，与现在相，是一还是异？’如果说相是一，而立三世之相，这是不合道理的。如果说相是异，那么体性和现象是真实存在的，这也是不合道理的。再者，你们应该说说自己所想的，随着三世之法，是常还是无常？如果是常相，而堕在三世之中，这是不合道理的。如果是无常相，在三世之中，恒常是真实存在的，这也是不合道理的。现在再问你们，随着你们的意思回答：是认为未来法来到现在世吗？还是认为它死后在这里生吗？还是认为它就住在未来？还是因缘生出现在？还是本来没有业，现在有业？还是本来的相不圆满，现在的相圆满？还是本来是异相，现在不是异相？还是在未来有现在的分？如果说就是未来法来到现在，那么这就有方所，后来与现在应该没有差别，又应该是常，这是不合道理的。如果说未来死后现在生，这就是未来不生，在现在世法本来没有现在生。而且未来没有生而言死殁，这是不合道理的。
English
English version: If it is not thus accomplished, then by this reasoning, the past and future are also not real; this is unreasonable. Because of such thinking, such a view arises, and such a thesis is established: the nature and phenomena of past and future dharmas are truly existent. One should question them: 'What do you desire? Are the past and future two aspects the same as or different from the present aspect?' If you say the aspects are the same and establish the three aspects of time, that is unreasonable. If you say the aspects are different, then the nature and phenomena are truly existent, which is also unreasonable. Furthermore, you should state what you think: are the dharmas of the three times permanent or impermanent? If they are permanent aspects, then falling within the three times is unreasonable. If they are impermanent aspects, yet constantly truly existent within the three times, that is also unreasonable. Now I ask you again, answer according to your intention: do you think that future dharmas come to the present world? Or do you think that they die there and are born here? Or do you think that they just reside in the future? Or do they arise in the present due to conditions? Or is it that originally there was no karma, and now there is karma? Or is it that the original aspect was not complete, and now the aspect is complete? Or is it that originally it was a different aspect, and now it is not a different aspect? Or is it that in the future there is a part of the present? If it is said that the future dharma comes to the present, then this would have a location, and later there should be no difference from the present, and it should also be permanent, which is unreasonable. If it is said that the future dies and is born in the present, then the future does not arise, and in the present world, dharmas originally do not have a present birth. Moreover, it is unreasonable to say that the future, which has not yet arisen, dies and ceases.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------