如實論反質難品一卷
Treatise on Truth: Refutation of Objections (One Scroll)
陳天竺三藏真諦譯
Translated by Paramārtha, Tripitaka Master from India
反質難品中無道理難品第一
Chapter on Pointless Disputes, Section 1
論曰：汝稱我言說無道理；若如此者，汝言說亦無道理。若汝言說無道理，我言說則有道理。若汝言說有道理，稱我言說無道理者，是義不然。
You argue that my words are illogical. If that is so, then your own words are also illogical. If your words are illogical, then my words are logical. But if you claim your words are logical while saying mine are not, this position is inconsistent.
復次無道理者自體中有道理，是故無有無道理。若自體中無道理者，無道理亦應無，是故汝說我無道理，是義不然。又若汝稱我言說無道理，自顯汝無智。何以故？無道理者則無所有，言說者與無道理為一為異？若一者，言說亦無，汝云何稱我言說無道理？若異者，言說有道理，汝復何故稱我言說無道理耶？
Moreover, what is said to be "unreasonable" itself contains reason within; therefore, there is no such thing as something that is completely unreasonable. If something were truly without reason in itself, then even the concept of "unreason" would not exist. Thus, your claim that I am being unreasonable is incorrect.
Furthermore, if you say my words are unreasonable, you are only showing your own lack of wisdom. Why? Because if something is truly without reason, it does not exist at all. The question is: Are your words and this "unreason" one and the same, or are they different?
If they are the same, then your very words are also nonexistent—so how can you claim my words are unreasonable?
If they are different, then your words are reasonable in themselves—so why do you call my words unreasonable?
復次言說自相破故。汝難言說共我言說，為同時、為不同時？同時者，則不能破我言說，譬如牛角馬耳同時生故不能相破。若不同者，汝難在前、我言在後，我言未出汝何所難？是故不成難。若我言在前、汝難在後，我言已成，復何所難？若同時者，我言汝難是難是可難不可分別，譬如江水海水同時和合不可分別。又汝難為難自義、為不難自義？若難自義，自義自壞，我言自成。若不難自義，難則不成就。何以故？於自義中不成就難故。若成就者，自義則壞、他義則成。
Furthermore, when you attempt to refute my statement by analyzing its nature, I ask you: does your refutation occur at the same time as my statement, or at a different time? If they are simultaneous, then one cannot refute the other—just like the two horns of a cow, which grow at the same time and cannot cancel each other out. If they are not simultaneous, then two possibilities arise: either your refutation comes before my statement, or after.
If your refutation comes before my statement, then my statement hasn't even been made yet—so what exactly are you refuting? Your objection would be invalid.
If my statement comes before your refutation, then my point has already been established. What is there left to refute?
And if both occur at the same time, then there is no way to distinguish your refutation from my original statement—they become mixed together like the waters of two rivers merging, impossible to separate.
Further, I ask you: does your refutation apply to itself, or not? If it applies to itself, then your own argument self-destructs, and my point stands. If it does not apply to itself, then your refutation fails to achieve its purpose. Why? Because if it is not valid against itself, it cannot be a valid refutation. If it were valid, then your own argument would be undermined and mine would be confirmed.
復次汝稱我言說無道理者，非是言說，若是言說不得無道理，有言說、無道理，此二相違。譬如童女有兒，若是童女，不得有兒；若有兒，則非童女。童女、有兒此二相違，是故稱有言說無道理，是義不然。
Furthermore, what you claim — that my words are without reason — is incorrect. If they were truly without reason, then they would not be words at all, because words and unreason contradict each other. For example, if a young girl has a child, she cannot truly be a young girl; if she has a child, she is no longer a young girl. "Young girl" and "having a child" are contradictory. Therefore, your claim that there are words without reason is invalid.
復次與證智相違故。汝聞我言說而稱無道理者，若汝已聞則為證智所成就。證智力大，汝言則壞。譬如有人說聲不為耳識得，耳識既得聲，為證智所成就。證智力大，此言則壞。
Moreover, this contradicts direct knowledge. You hear my statement and call it unreasonable, but having heard it, direct knowledge proves it true. The power of direct knowledge is great; your words are refuted. For example, if someone says sound cannot be perceived by ear-consciousness, but ear-consciousness does perceive sound, this is established by direct knowledge. Since the power of direct knowledge is great, that statement is invalidated.
復次與比智相違故。若汝稱我有言說，比智所得則知有道理。若無道理，言說亦無；若有言說，知有道理。譬如有人說聲常住，從因生故。一切從因生者則無常住，譬如瓦器從因生故不得常住。聲若從因生，不得常住；若常住者，不得從因生。無常住者，比智所成就。比智力大，常住則壞。有道理者，若有言說則有道理，有道理者比智所成就，無道理者則壞。
Furthermore, because understanding through reasoning contradicts your position. If you claim that I have spoken, then reasoning can establish that there is a principle involved. Without principle, speech itself is impossible. Where there is speech, we know a principle exists.
For example, suppose someone says that sound is permanent because it originates from a cause. But whatever originates from a cause cannot be permanent—just as a clay pot, being produced from causes, cannot be permanent. If sound originates from a cause, it cannot be permanent; if it were permanent, it could not originate from a cause. This lack of permanence is established through reasoning. The power of reasoning is great—it destroys the notion of permanence.
When there is a principle, speech is possible. This principle is established through reasoning. Where there is no principle, the argument collapses.
復次與世間相違故。汝稱我言說無道理，是語與世間相違。何以故？於世間中立四種道理：一因果道理、二相待道理、三成就道理、四如如道理。因果道理者，如種子與芽。相待道理者，如長短父子。成就道理者，如五分言成就義。如如道理者，有三種：一無我如如、二無常如如、三寂靜如如。於世間中言說為果、道理為因，世間中若見果則知有因，若見言說則知有道理。汝稱我言說無道理，是義與世間相違。若有言說無道理者，無有是處。汝稱我言說異，不相應故，我今共汝辯決是處，若人說異則有過失。汝自立義與我義異，則是自說則是異說，是故汝得過失。若汝義異我自說，則異過失在汝，不關於我。若不異，汝則同我，則無有異，汝說我異，此是邪語。
Moreover, your claim that my words have no reasoning contradicts the way the world itself works. Why? The world recognizes four kinds of reason: causal reason, relational reason, constructive reason, and the reason of suchness. Causal reason is like the relationship between a seed and its sprout. Relational reason is like the relationship between "long" and "short," or "father" and "son." Constructive reason is when a statement's meaning is established through its five parts. The reason of suchness has three aspects: the suchness of no-self, the suchness of impermanence, and the suchness of peace.
In the world, words are the result and reason is the cause. When the world sees an effect, it knows there must be a cause; when it sees words, it knows there must be a reason behind them. So your claim that my words have no reasoning goes against this universal understanding. To say there can be words with no reason is simply not possible.
You also claim that my words are "different" and "incompatible." But now we are here to debate this. If someone makes a claim that is different, it is they who are at fault. You have set forth your own position, and if it is different from mine, then you are speaking a different view—so the fault lies with you, not with me. If your position is different and I am just speaking my own, then the error of difference rests with you. But if your position is not different from mine, then you are agreeing with me, and there is no difference at all. Therefore, your accusation that I am different is itself false.
復次異與異無異，是故無異。若異與異異，則不是異。譬如人與牛異，人不是牛。若異與異無異則是一，若一則無有異，汝何故說我為異？
Furthermore, "difference" and "no difference from difference"—there is no difference between them. If difference were different from difference, then it would not be difference. For example, a person is different from a cow; a person is not a cow. If difference were not different from difference, then they would be the same. If they were the same, then there would be no difference at all. So why do you claim that I am "different"?
復次是道理者，我於汝道理中共諍故，我說有異。若汝與我不異者，則不與汝共諍，我說汝義故。若一切所說異者，汝亦有所說，是故汝說異，過失在汝。若汝說不說異者，我亦說不說異。汝言我說異，是義不然，汝是邪語。餘義如前說。汝稱我說義不成就，我今共汝辯決是處。若說不成就者，是說不成就說。若所說不成就，則不得說。若不得說者，汝云何說我所說不成就。若得說，所說則應成就。汝說不成就，是義不然。若一切所說不成就者，汝說難難我，是難則不成就。若汝說難非不成就者，我說亦如是非不成就。汝說我不成就，是義不然。不成就者，於自體中成就，是故無不成就。若不成就於自體中無有成就者，亦應無有不成就者。若有成就，則無有不成就，是故汝說我不成就，無有是處。若汝說不誦我難則不得我意，若不得我意則不得難我，我今共汝辯決是處。若未誦我難，則不得說汝難。汝為誦難能難、為未誦難而難？若汝不誦而得說難者，我亦不誦而得說難。若汝誦難得說難者，則恒誦難。何以故？難中復生難，難則無窮，無有不誦難時、無有得說難時。
Furthermore, the reason for this is that because I dispute your position, I say that I differ from you. If I were not different from you, I would not dispute with you—I would merely be repeating your position. If everything spoken is necessarily different, then you too are speaking, so your speech is therefore different. Thus, the fault lies with you.
If you claim that speaking does not imply difference, then I also claim that speaking does not imply difference. Your assertion that I speak of difference is therefore incorrect; you are mistaken in your words. The remaining points are as previously explained.
You claim that my statement is invalid. Now let us reason together to determine this point. If what is spoken is invalid, then that speech itself is an invalid speaking. If the spoken words are invalid, then nothing can be stated. If nothing can be stated, how can you assert that my statement is invalid? If something can be stated, then the statement must be valid. Your claim that it is invalid is therefore incorrect.
If all statements were invalid, then your arguments against me would also be invalid. If you say your arguments are not invalid, then mine are likewise not invalid. Your assertion that I am invalid is therefore incorrect.
An invalid statement, in its own essence, is still valid. Therefore, there is no such thing as absolute invalidity. If something is invalid, then in its own essence there can be no validity, but likewise there can be no invalidity either. If validity exists, there cannot be invalidity. Hence, your claim that I am invalid has no basis.
If you say that without understanding my argument you cannot grasp my meaning, then if you do not grasp my meaning, you cannot argue against me. Let us now reason together on this point. If you have not understood my argument, you cannot state your own argument. Do you present your argument after understanding mine, or without understanding it?
If you can present an argument without understanding, then I too can present an argument without understanding. If you claim you must understand before arguing, then you would need to perpetually understand, for how could it be otherwise? Each argument gives rise to further arguments, leading to an endless chain. There would never be a time when understanding is complete, and there would never be a time when an argument can be made.
復次從難名更有難名。若誦此難名故得說難名、不誦不得說難名者，但得後誦前難名，次難名未得誦，第三方得誦第二難名，第四方得誦第三難名，如是則恒誦無盡。若汝今不誦而得說難名者，初難名亦應不誦而得說難名。若初難名不誦不得說難名者，第二亦應不誦難名得說難名；第二不誦難名得說難名者，初亦應不誦難名得說難名。而今初難名必須誦方得說難名，第二難名亦應必須誦方得說難名，不應不誦而說。
Furthermore, beyond these challenging names, there are even more difficult names. If one recites these difficult names, one can explain them; without recitation, one cannot explain them. However, one may only recite the previous difficult name before the next one—the second difficult name cannot be recited until the first is mastered, the third can only be recited after the second, and the fourth only after the third. Thus, recitation continues endlessly.
If you claim that without recitation, one can still explain the difficult names, then the first difficult name should also be explainable without recitation. But if the first difficult name cannot be explained without recitation, then the second cannot be explained without recitation either. And if the second could be explained without recitation, then the first should be explainable without it as well.
Yet, as it stands, the first difficult name must be recited before it can be explained—so the second must also be recited before it can be explained. It should not be that one can explain it without recitation.
復次若不誦難而說難則墮負處，汝不誦自難，汝說難亦墮負處。若汝不誦難而說難，說難不墮負處者，我亦不誦難而說難，亦不墮負處。
Furthermore, if someone speaks of faults without having recited the faults themselves, then they fall into defeat. If you speak of faults without having recited the faults yourself, then you also fall into defeat. If you think that speaking of faults without reciting them does not lead to defeat, then I too can speak of faults without reciting them and still not be defeated.
復次若汝言說難我，我皆當誦；我難難汝，汝皆當誦。唯得互相領誦，則不得別立難。若恒相領誦，則失正義。譬如兩船相繫，大水若至相牽去來。
"Furthermore, if you present a challenge to me, I will recite it back; if I present a challenge to you, you will likewise recite it back. We can only repeat each other's arguments, and cannot raise any independent objections. However, if we simply keep repeating each other's words, the true meaning will be lost. This is like two boats tied together—when the great flood comes, they will be dragged back and forth together."
復次汝言皆是音聲，出口則失滅，云何得誦我語？音聲既是失滅之法，不得重還故，不得重誦。若音聲在則不能誦，以其常聲故；若言失滅則無所誦，以其無故。若音聲已失滅，汝令我誦，稱是汝言，是邪思惟。汝說我語前破後，我今共汝辯決是處。若我說前破後是道理。何以故？我語前、汝語後，若我語破後語，我義則勝、汝語則壞。復次若汝說一切語前破後，汝亦出語，前應破後。若汝語前不破後，我出語前亦不破後。
復次前破後者，於自體無前破後。若於自體有前破後，則前後俱無。是故汝說前破後，是語不然。若於自體無前破後，無有因故，前破後亦是無。汝說我語前破後，是邪思惟。汝說我說別因，我今共汝辯決是處。若人捨前因立別因墮負處者，汝則墮負處。何以故？汝亦捨前因立別因故。若汝立別因不墮負處，我亦如是。
復次我所說因，與汝所說因異。若我說異因，則是我道理。若不說異因，我則說汝因，非是對治相違，便同汝說。汝說我說異因，是邪思惟。若我同汝立因，汝破我因，則破汝自因。
Again, the cause I speak of is different from the cause you speak of. If I were to state a different cause, that would be my principle. But if I do not state a different cause, then I am relying on your cause—this is not a counterargument or contradiction, so it aligns with your position. When you claim that I speak of a different cause, that is mistaken thinking. If I were to establish my argument on the same cause as yours, and you refute that cause, you would actually be refuting your own cause.
復次若一切語是別因，汝亦出語，則是別因，是故汝墮負處。若汝出語不墮負處，汝說我立因墮負處，是義不然。若汝說我說別義，今共汝辯決是處。我所立義與汝義異，即是道理。我今與汝對治相違，是故說別義。若汝思惟我義與汝義不異，我義則不與汝義對治相違，若汝破我義則是自破。
Furthermore, if all statements are based on differentiating causes, then your own statement is also such a cause, so you fall into defeat. If your statement does not fall into defeat, then saying that my establishing a reason falls into defeat is not correct. If you claim that I am making a different point, let us debate this matter here. That my position differs from yours is itself the logical principle. I now counter your contradiction, and that is why I make a different point. If you think my position is no different from yours, then my position does not contradict yours; if you try to refute my position, you are refuting yourself.
復次異義於自體中無異義，異義則是無。若異義於自體中有異義，異義亦是無。是故汝稱我說異義，是義不然。
Furthermore, in the self itself, there is no difference; if there were a difference, that difference would be nothing. If the difference were present within the self as a difference, then that difference would also be nothing. Therefore, your claim that I speak of a difference is not the case.
復次若一切所說是異義，汝有所說亦應是異義。若汝有所說，不說是異義，汝說一切所說是異義，是義不然。汝說我今語猶是前語無異語者，我今共汝辯決是處。我立義與汝立義對治相違，若我說自立義對治汝義，是正道理。何以故？我一切處說為破汝義，是故我說無有異。若我應說異義者，汝立義與我義異。若我說異義則說汝義，則不共汝相違，汝難我則是難自義。
復次如我前說聲無常，此語自滅自盡，今更別出語，汝說我說前語，是邪思惟。
復次若汝說我所說無異，若我說異則是異，若我說無異則是不異。若我說是不得成，是汝說我無異，是義不然。若汝言一切所說我皆不許，我今共汝辯決是處。汝說不許一切，此說為入一切數、為不入一切數？若入一切數，汝則自不許汝所說。若自不許者，我義則是汝所許，我義自成、汝言便壞。若不入一切數者，則無一切。若無一切，汝不許一切。若不許一切，我義便非汝不許，我義亦成、汝言終壞。