Chinese
彼或异。应问彼言：汝然此不？有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若不可说彼或彼或异，是则应言有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，则不应言不可说彼或彼或异；言不可说彼或彼或异，不应道理。如有从㮈落迦没生于人趣，如是有从㮈落迦没生于天趣亦尔。如㮈落迦趣，如是傍生鬼天人趣亦尔。此中差别者，于㮈落迦傍生鬼趣中不应说有所堪能，于天人趣中应说有所堪能。于天人趣中不应说无所堪能，于㮈落迦傍生鬼趣中应说无所堪能。 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，如是八种补特伽罗，决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗得预流果。彼答言：尔。汝听堕负。若有八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉 现代汉语译本： 或者情况有所不同。应该这样问他：‘你认可这样吗？’如果说‘有众生从㮈落迦（Naraka，地狱）死亡后投生到人趣（Manushya-gati，人间道）’，这样的话语不能说是‘或者就是那个，或者不是那个’。他回答说：‘不认可。’你因此而失败。如果不能说‘或者就是那个，或者不是那个’，那么就应该说‘有众生从㮈落迦死亡后投生到人趣’，这样的话语不能说是‘或者就是那个，或者不是那个’，你这样说是没有道理的。如果你不说‘有众生从㮈落迦死亡后投生到人趣，这样的话语不能说是‘或者就是那个，或者不是那个’，那么就不应该说‘不能说或者就是那个，或者不是那个’；说‘不能说或者就是那个，或者不是那个’，是没有道理的。’如同有众生从㮈落迦死亡后投生到人趣一样，也有众生从㮈落迦死亡后投生到天趣（Deva-gati，天道）。如同㮈落迦趣一样，傍生（Tiryagyoni，畜生道）、鬼趣（Preta-gati，饿鬼道）、天趣、人趣也是如此。这里面的差别在于，在㮈落迦、傍生、鬼趣中不应该说有什么堪能（samarthya，能力），在天、人趣中应该说有什么堪能。在天、人趣中不应该说没有什么堪能，在㮈落迦、傍生、鬼趣中应该说没有什么堪能。 补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗，意为‘人’或‘个体’）论者这样说：‘真实的、胜义的补特伽罗，是可以获得、可以证悟、现在存在、平等存在的，所以一定有补特伽罗。’性空论者这样问：‘你认可这样吗？’所谓的契经（Sutra，佛经）中，世尊（释迦摩尼佛）善妙的语言、善妙的词句、善妙的说法，像这样八种补特伽罗，确定安立，不会混杂错乱，也就是预流果（Srotapanna-phala，须陀洹果）的能作证向（证向，趋向于证得果位的修行阶段）和预流果，乃至阿罗汉果（Arhat-phala，阿罗汉果）的能作证向和阿罗汉果，确定有别的预流果能作证向，确定有别的预流果，乃至确定有别的阿罗汉果能作证向，确定有别的阿罗汉果。’他回答说：‘认可。’又问他：‘你认可这样吗？’诸位预流果能作证向的补特伽罗，能够获得预流果。’他回答说：‘认可。’你因此而失败。如果说有八种补特伽罗确定安立，不会混杂错乱，也就是预流果的能作证向和预流果，乃至阿罗汉
English
English version: Or it might be different. One should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' To say, 'There are beings who, having died in Naraka (hell), are reborn in the Manushya-gati (human realm),' such a statement cannot be said to be 'either that or different.' He replies: 'I do not affirm.' You are therefore defeated. If it cannot be said 'either that or different,' then it should be said, 'There are beings who, having died in Naraka, are reborn in the human realm,' such a statement cannot be said to be 'either that or different,' it is unreasonable for you to say so. If you do not say, 'There are beings who, having died in Naraka, are reborn in the human realm, such a statement cannot be said to be 'either that or different,' then it should not be said 'it cannot be said either that or different'; saying 'it cannot be said either that or different' is unreasonable.' Just as there are beings who, having died in Naraka, are reborn in the human realm, so too are there beings who, having died in Naraka, are reborn in the Deva-gati (heavenly realm). Just like the Naraka-gati, so too are the Tiryagyoni (animal realm), Preta-gati (ghost realm), Deva-gati, and Manushya-gati. The difference here is that in Naraka, Tiryagyoni, and Preta-gati, one should not say there is any samarthya (ability), while in Deva and Manushya-gati, one should say there is some samarthya. In Deva and Manushya-gati, one should not say there is no samarthya, while in Naraka, Tiryagyoni, and Preta-gati, one should say there is no samarthya. The Pudgalavadins (those who assert the existence of a Pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'individual') say thus: 'The real, ultimate Pudgala, is attainable, realizable, presently existing, and equally existing, therefore there definitely is a Pudgala.' The proponents of emptiness ask thus: 'Do you affirm this?' In the Sutras (Buddhist scriptures), the Blessed One's (Shakyamuni Buddha) good words, good phrases, and good teachings, like these eight types of Pudgalas, are definitely established, not mixed up or confused, namely the Srotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) with its path of attainment and the Srotapanna-phala, up to the Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) with its path of attainment and the Arhat-phala, definitely there is a separate path of attainment for the Srotapanna-phala, definitely there is a separate Srotapanna-phala, up to definitely there is a separate path of attainment for the Arhat-phala, definitely there is a separate Arhat-phala.' He replies: 'I affirm.' Again he asks him: 'Do you affirm this?' Those Pudgalas on the path of attainment for the Srotapanna-phala, are able to attain the Srotapanna-phala.' He replies: 'I affirm.' You are therefore defeated. If there are eight types of Pudgalas definitely established, not mixed up or confused, namely the path of attainment for the Srotapanna-phala and the Srotapanna-phala, up to the Arhat --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果，则不应言诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗得预流果，汝作是言不应道理。今汝若说诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗得预流果，则不应说如是八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果。言此八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果，不应道理。彼作是言：诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗定得预流果。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼即是彼。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若预流果能作证向补特伽罗定得预流果，是则应说彼即是彼，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼即是彼，则不应言诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗定得预流果；言预流果能作证向补特伽罗定得预流果，不应道理。若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼作证向即是住果。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，汝则应言彼作证向即是住果，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说 彼作证向即是住果，则不应言彼即是彼；言彼即是彼，不应道理。又若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？诸预流果能作证向补特伽罗不成就果，若预流果成就于果。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？彼不成就即是成就。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若预流果能作证向补特伽罗不成就果，彼预流果成就于果，是则应言彼不成就即是成就，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼不成就即是成就，则不应言彼即是彼；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？诸预流果能作证向断别生预流果。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼异于彼，是则应言诸预流果能作证向断别生预流果，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸预流果能作证向断别生预流果，则不应言彼异于彼；言彼异于彼，不应道理。若作是言：不可说彼或彼或异。应问彼言：汝然此不？诸预流果能作证向得预流果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若不可说彼或彼或异，是则应言诸预流果能作证向得预流果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸预流果能作证向得预流果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，则不应言不可说彼或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。如预流果能作证向望预流果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异， 现代汉语译本：如果他说，‘那个正向于证得果位的人就是已经证得果位的人’，那么就不应该说‘他就是他’；说‘他就是他’，是不合道理的。而且，如果这样说：‘他就是他’，应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是，‘正向于证得预流果（Srotapanna-phala，预流果：佛教修行中的第一个果位，指断除了三界见惑，进入圣者之流）的补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗：意为“人”，但在佛教哲学中指代个体或灵魂）没有成就预流果，如果预流果成就了果位。’他回答说：‘是的。’再问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是，‘没有成就就是成就。’他回答说：‘不认可。’你听着，你已经自相矛盾了。如果正向于证得预流果的补特伽罗没有成就果位，而那个预流果成就了果位，那么就应该说‘没有成就就是成就’，你说这话是不合道理的。如果你不说‘没有成就就是成就’，那么就不应该说‘他就是他’；说‘他就是他’，是不合道理。如果他说：‘他不同于他’，应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是，‘正向于证得预流果的人断除了其他生的预流果。’他回答说：‘不认可。’你听着，你已经自相矛盾了。如果‘他不同于他’，那么就应该说‘正向于证得预流果的人断除了其他生的预流果’，你说这话是不合道理的。如果你不说‘正向于证得预流果的人断除了其他生的预流果’，那么就不应该说‘他不同于他’；说‘他不同于他’，是不合道理。如果他说：‘不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他’，应该问他说：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是，‘正向于证得预流果的人得到了预流果，这样的话也不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他。’他回答说：‘不认可。’你听着，你已经自相矛盾了。如果不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他，那么就应该说‘正向于证得预流果的人得到了预流果，这样的话也不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他’，你说这话是不合道理的。如果你不说‘正向于证得预流果的人得到了预流果，这样的话也不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他’，那么就不应该说‘不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他’，你说这话是不合道理。就像正向于证得预流果的人期望得到预流果一样，这样的话也不能说他就是他，也不能说他不同于他。
English
English version: If he asserts, 'That one who is on the path to realizing the fruit is the one who has already realized the fruit,' then it should not be said, 'He is he'; saying 'He is he' is unreasonable. Moreover, if it is said: 'He is he,' one should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, 'The Pudgala (Pudgala: meaning 'person,' but in Buddhist philosophy, it refers to an individual or soul) who is on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala (Srotapanna-phala: the first stage of enlightenment in Buddhism, referring to the one who has eliminated the delusions of views in the three realms and entered the stream of the noble ones) has not achieved the fruit, if the Srotapanna-phala has achieved the fruit.' He replies: 'Yes.' Ask him again: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, 'Non-achievement is achievement.' He replies: 'No.' Listen, you have contradicted yourself. If the Pudgala who is on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has not achieved the fruit, and that Srotapanna-phala has achieved the fruit, then it should be said, 'Non-achievement is achievement,' your saying this is unreasonable. If you do not say 'Non-achievement is achievement,' then it should not be said, 'He is he'; saying 'He is he' is unreasonable. If he says: 'He is different from him,' one should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has severed the Srotapanna-phala of another birth.' He replies: 'No.' Listen, you have contradicted yourself. If 'He is different from him,' then it should be said, 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has severed the Srotapanna-phala of another birth,' your saying this is unreasonable. If you do not say 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has severed the Srotapanna-phala of another birth,' then it should not be said, 'He is different from him'; saying 'He is different from him' is unreasonable. If he says: 'It cannot be said that he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him,' one should ask him: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has attained the Srotapanna-phala, and such a statement cannot be said to be either he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him.' He replies: 'No.' Listen, you have contradicted yourself. If it cannot be said that he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him, then it should be said, 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has attained the Srotapanna-phala, and such a statement cannot be said to be either he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him,' your saying this is unreasonable. If you do not say 'The one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala has attained the Srotapanna-phala, and such a statement cannot be said to be either he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him,' then it should not be said, 'It cannot be said that he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him,' your saying this is unreasonable. Just as the one on the path to realizing the Srotapanna-phala expects to attain the Srotapanna-phala, such a statement cannot be said to be either he is he, nor can it be said that he is different from him. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
则不应言不可说彼或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。如预流果能作证向望预流果，如是诸一来果能作证向望一来果亦尔。此中差别者，诸一来果能作证向，不应定说不成就果。 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，如是八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果。决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？诸不还果能作证向得不还果。彼答言：尔。汝听堕负。若有八种补特伽罗，决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果，则不应说诸不还果能作证向得不还果，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说诸不还果能作证向得不还果，则不应言如是八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓预流果能作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能作证向决定别有阿罗汉果； 现代汉语译本： 因此，不应该说不可说它们是相同、不同或既相同又不同。你这样说是不合道理的。正如Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）的途径，同样，Sakrdagami-phala（一来果，斯陀含果）能够作为证向Sakrdagami-phala（一来果，斯陀含果）的途径也是如此。这里的区别在于，当Sakrdagami-phala（一来果，斯陀含果）能够作为证向时，不应断定说它没有成就果位。 补特伽罗论者这样说：真实的、胜义的补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗，意为‘人’或‘个体’）是可以获得、可以证悟、实际存在、平等存在的，因此必定存在补特伽罗（Pudgala）。性空论者这样问：你认可这个吗？在契经中，世尊（世尊，佛陀的尊称）善妙的语言、善妙的词句、善妙的说法，这样八种补特伽罗（Pudgala）被确定安立，不相混淆，即Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）的途径，乃至Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）的途径。确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果），乃至确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）。对方回答说：是的。性空论者又问：你认可这个吗？Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果）能够作为证向获得Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果）。对方回答说：是的。那么你已经自相矛盾了。如果存在八种补特伽罗（Pudgala），被确定安立，不相混淆，即Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）的途径，乃至Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）的途径，确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果），乃至确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果），那么就不应该说Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果）能够作为证向获得Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果），你这样说是不合道理的。如果你现在说Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果）能够作为证向获得Anagami-phala（不还果，阿那含果），那么就不应该说这八种补特伽罗（Pudgala）被确定安立，不相混淆，即Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）的途径，乃至Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）的途径，确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Sotapanna-phala（预流果，须陀洹果），乃至确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）能够作为证向，确定有不同的Arhat-phala（阿罗汉果，阿罗汉果）。