English
English version: Therefore, it should not be said that they are inexpressible as being the same, different, or both. It is not reasonable for you to say this. Just as Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) can serve as the path towards the realization of Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), similarly, Sakrdagami-phala (Once-returner fruit) can serve as the path towards the realization of Sakrdagami-phala (Once-returner fruit). The difference here is that when Sakrdagami-phala (Once-returner fruit) can serve as the path, it should not be definitively said that it has not achieved the fruit. Those who argue for the existence of Pudgala (Person, individual) say this: The true, ultimate Pudgala (Person) can be attained, can be realized, actually exists, and equally exists; therefore, Pudgala (Person) definitely exists. Those who argue for emptiness ask this: Do you accept this? In the Sutras, the World-Honored One's (Buddha's title) good words, good phrases, and good teachings establish eight types of Pudgala (Person) that are definitely established and not mixed up, namely, Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) can serve as the path towards Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) can serve as the path towards Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit). There is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit). The other party answers: Yes. The emptiness proponent then asks: Do you accept this? Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit) can serve as the path to attain Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit). The other party answers: Yes. Then you have contradicted yourself. If there are eight types of Pudgala (Person) that are definitely established and not mixed up, namely, Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) can serve as the path towards Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) can serve as the path towards Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit), there is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit), then it should not be said that Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit) can serve as the path to attain Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit). It is not reasonable for you to say this. If you now say that Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit) can serve as the path to attain Anagami-phala (Non-returner fruit), then it should not be said that these eight types of Pudgala (Person) are definitely established and not mixed up, namely, Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) can serve as the path towards Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) can serve as the path towards Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit), there is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Sotapanna-phala (Stream-enterer fruit), up to there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit) that can serve as the path, and there is definitely a distinct Arhat-phala (Arhat fruit). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
言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，不应道理。彼作是言：诸不还果能作证向定得不还果。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼即是彼。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若不还果能作证向定得不还果，是则应说彼即是彼，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼即是彼，则不应言诸不还果能作证向定得不还果；言不还果能作证向定得不还果，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，是则应说彼作证向即是住果，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？诸不还果能作证向有其瞋恚，彼不还果远离瞋恚。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？彼有瞋恚即离瞋恚。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说彼有瞋恚即离瞋恚，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼有瞋恚即离瞋恚，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？诸不还果能作证向断别生不还果。答言：不尔。汝听 现代汉语译本 有八种补特伽罗（pudgala，人）被确定安立，彼此不相混淆，也就是：预流果（srota-āpanna-phala，入流果）的能作证向（sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka，趣向作证）和预流果，乃至阿罗汉果（arhat-phala，无学果）的能作证向和阿罗汉果，（如果说）预流果的能作证向和预流果是绝对不同的，乃至阿罗汉果的能作证向和阿罗汉果是绝对不同的，这是不合理的。 有人这样说：‘不还果（anāgāmin-phala，不来果）的能作证向必定获得不还果。’应该问他：‘你认可这样吗？’他回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经失败了。如果不还果的能作证向必定获得不还果，那么就应该说它们是相同的，但你说它们不同，这是不合理的。如果你不认为它们是相同的，那么就不应该说不还果的能作证向必定获得不还果；说不还果的能作证向必定获得不还果，这是不合理的。 如果有人这样说：‘它们是相同的。’应该问他：‘你认可这样吗？’（即）能作证向就是住果（sthita-phala，安住于果位）。他回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经失败了。如果它们是相同的，那么就应该说能作证向就是住果，但你说它们不同，这是不合理的。如果你不认为能作证向就是住果，那么就不应该说它们是相同的；说它们是相同的，这是不合理的。 此外，如果有人这样说：‘它们是相同的。’应该问他：‘你认可这样吗？’不还果的能作证向有瞋恚（dveṣa，嗔），而不还果远离瞋恚。他回答说：‘认可。’再问他：‘你认可这样吗？有瞋恚的同时又远离瞋恚。’他回答说：‘不是这样的。’你听着，你已经失败了。如果它们是相同的，那么就应该说有瞋恚的同时又远离瞋恚，但你说它们不同，这是不合理的。如果你不认为有瞋恚的同时又远离瞋恚，那么就不应该说它们是相同的；说它们是相同的，这是不合理的。 如果有人这样说：‘它们是不同的。’应该问他：‘你认可这样吗？不还果的能作证向断除了别生（antara-bhava，中阴）的不还果。’他回答说：‘不认可。’你听着
English
English version There are eight types of pudgalas (persons) that are definitively established as distinct and unmixed. These are: the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka (one who has entered the path of realization) of the srota-āpanna-phala (fruit of stream-entry) and the srota-āpanna-phala itself, up to the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the arhat-phala (fruit of arhatship) and the arhat-phala itself. (It is unreasonable to say that) the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the srota-āpanna-phala is absolutely different from the srota-āpanna-phala, and so on, up to the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the arhat-phala being absolutely different from the arhat-phala. Someone might say: 'The sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala (fruit of non-returning) will definitely attain the anāgāmin-phala.' You should ask him: 'Do you agree with this?' He might answer: 'No.' Listen, you have already lost. If the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala will definitely attain the anāgāmin-phala, then it should be said that they are the same, but you say they are different, which is unreasonable. If you do not consider them to be the same, then you should not say that the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala will definitely attain the anāgāmin-phala; saying that the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala will definitely attain the anāgāmin-phala is unreasonable. If someone says: 'They are the same,' you should ask him: 'Do you agree with this?' (That is,) the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka is the sthita-phala (abiding in the fruit). He might answer: 'No.' Listen, you have already lost. If they are the same, then it should be said that the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka is the sthita-phala, but you say they are different, which is unreasonable. If you do not consider the sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka to be the sthita-phala, then you should not say that they are the same; saying that they are the same is unreasonable. Furthermore, if someone says: 'They are the same,' you should ask him: 'Do you agree with this?' The sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala has dveṣa (hatred), while the anāgāmin-phala is free from hatred. He might answer: 'I agree.' Ask him again: 'Do you agree with this? Having hatred and being free from hatred at the same time.' He might answer: 'No.' Listen, you have already lost. If they are the same, then it should be said that having hatred and being free from hatred occur at the same time, but you say they are different, which is unreasonable. If you do not consider having hatred and being free from hatred to occur at the same time, then you should not say that they are the same; saying that they are the same is unreasonable. If someone says: 'They are different,' you should ask him: 'Do you agree with this? The sakṣātkriyā-pratipannaka of the anāgāmin-phala cuts off the antara-bhava (intermediate existence) of the anāgāmin-phala.' He might answer: 'I do not agree.' Listen, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
堕负。若彼异于彼，是则应说诸不还果能作证向断别生不还果，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸不还果能作证向断别生不还果，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？诸不还果能作证向得不还果，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，是则应说诸不还果能作证向得不还果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸不还果能作证向得不还果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，则不应言不可说彼或彼或异；言不可说彼或彼或异，不应道理。 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？阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果。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 现代汉语译本：堕负。如果那个和那个不同，那么就应该说诸不还果（Anagami-phala，不还果）能够作证向断别生不还果，你说这样的话是不合道理的。如果你不说诸不还果能够作证向断别生不还果，那么就不应该说那个和那个不同；说那个和那个不同，是不合道理的。如果这样说：不可说那个或那个或不同。应该问他：你认可这个吗？诸不还果能够作证向得不还果，这样的话也不可说或那个或不同。回答说：不认可。你听着，你已经堕负了。如果不可说那个或那个或不同，那么就应该说诸不还果能够作证向得不还果，这样的话也不可说或那个或不同，你说这样的话是不合道理的。如果你不说诸不还果能够作证向得不还果，这样的话也不可说或那个或不同，那么就不应该说不可说那个或那个或不同；说不可说那个或那个或不同，是不合道理的。 补特伽罗论者（Pudgalavada，补特伽罗论者）这样说：谛义胜义补特伽罗（Pudgala，补特伽罗）：可以获得、可以证得、现在有、等同于有，所以一定有补特伽罗。性空论者这样问：你认可这个吗？就是契经中世尊善语善词善说，像这样八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，就是预流果（Srotapanna-phala，预流果）能够作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果（Arhat-phala，阿罗汉果）能够作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能够作证向决定别有预流果，乃至决定别有阿罗汉果能够作证向决定别有阿罗汉果。他回答说：认可。又问他：你认可这个吗？阿罗汉果能够作证向得阿罗汉果。他回答说：认可。你听着，你已经堕负了。如果有八种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，就是预流果能够作证向若预流果，乃至阿罗汉果能够作证向若阿罗汉果，决定别有预流果能够作
English
English version: Defeated. If that is different from that, then it should be said that the Anagami-phala (Fruit of Non-Returning) can realize the path towards cutting off separate births as Anagami-phala. Your saying this is unreasonable. If you do not say that the Anagami-phala can realize the path towards cutting off separate births as Anagami-phala, then you should not say that that is different from that; saying that that is different from that is unreasonable. If you say this: it cannot be said that that is either that or different. You should be asked: Do you affirm this? That the Anagami-phala can realize the path to attaining Anagami-phala, such a statement cannot be said to be either that or different. He answers: No. Listen, you are defeated. If it cannot be said that that is either that or different, then it should be said that the Anagami-phala can realize the path to attaining Anagami-phala, such a statement cannot be said to be either that or different, your saying this is unreasonable. If you do not say that the Anagami-phala can realize the path to attaining Anagami-phala, such a statement cannot be said to be either that or different, then you should not say that it cannot be said that that is either that or different; saying that it cannot be said that that is either that or different is unreasonable. The Pudgalavadins (Personalists) say thus: The ultimately real Pudgala (Person) can be obtained, can be realized, exists now, is equivalent to existence, therefore there definitely is a Pudgala. The Emptiness proponent asks thus: Do you affirm this? That in the sutras, the World Honored One speaks well, with good words, and well-spoken, that these eight types of Pudgalas are definitely established without being mixed up, namely the Srotapanna-phala (Fruit of Stream-Entry) can realize the path towards the Srotapanna-phala, up to the Arhat-phala (Fruit of Arhatship) can realize the path towards the Arhat-phala, there is definitely a separate Srotapanna-phala that can realize the path, there is definitely a separate Srotapanna-phala, up to there is definitely a separate Arhat-phala that can realize the path, there is definitely a separate Arhat-phala. He answers: Yes. He asks him again: Do you affirm this? That the Arhat-phala can realize the path to attaining Arhat-phala. He answers: Yes. Listen, you are defeated. If there are eight types of Pudgalas definitely established without being mixed up, namely the Srotapanna-phala can realize the path towards the Srotapanna-phala, up to the Arhat-phala can realize the path towards the Arhat-phala, there is definitely a separate Srotapanna-phala that can realize the --------------------------------------------------------------------------------