Chinese
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，则不应说阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果，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：阿罗汉果能作证向定得阿罗汉果。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼即是彼。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若有阿罗汉果能作证向定得阿罗汉果，是则应说彼即是彼，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼即是彼，则不应言阿罗汉果能作证向定得阿罗汉果；言阿罗汉果能作证向定得阿罗汉果，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： 现代汉语译本： 如果确定有趋向于证得初果（Srotapanna-phala，预流果）的补特伽罗，乃至确定有趋向于证得阿罗汉果（Arhat-phala）的补特伽罗，能够趋向于证得并确定有阿罗汉果，那么就不应该说阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得并获得阿罗汉果。你这样说是不合道理的。如果你现在说阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得并获得阿罗汉果，那么就不应该说有这样八种补特伽罗（Pudgala，人）被确定安立，不会互相混淆，即趋向于证得初果的补特伽罗，乃至趋向于证得阿罗汉果的补特伽罗，确定有趋向于证得初果的补特伽罗，乃至确定有趋向于证得阿罗汉果的补特伽罗；说有八种补特伽罗被确定安立，不会互相混淆，即趋向于证得初果的补特伽罗，乃至趋向于证得阿罗汉果的补特伽罗，确定有趋向于证得初果的补特伽罗，乃至确定有趋向于证得阿罗汉果的补特伽罗，是不合道理的。 对方这样说：阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得，必定获得阿罗汉果。应该问对方：你认可这个说法吗？对方就是对方。回答说：不认可。你听着，你已经失败了。如果阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得，必定获得阿罗汉果，那么就应该说对方就是对方，你这样说是不合道理的。如果你不说对方就是对方，那么就不应该说阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得，必定获得阿罗汉果；说阿罗汉果能够趋向于证得，必定获得阿罗汉果，是不合道理的。如果这样说：对方就是对方。应该问对方：你认可这个说法吗？对方趋向于证得就是安住于果位。回答说：不认可。你听着，你已经失败了。如果对方就是对方，那么就应该说对方趋向于证得就是安住于果位，你这样说是不合道理的。如果你不说对方趋向于证得就是安住于果位，那么就不应该说对方就是对方；说对方就是对方，是不合道理的。又如果这样说：
English
English version: If it is certain that there is a person (Pudgala) who is directed towards realizing the Stream-enterer fruit (Srotapanna-phala), up to and including a person who is directed towards realizing the Arhat fruit (Arhat-phala), and is capable of being directed towards realizing and certainly possessing the Arhat fruit, then it should not be said that the Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and attaining the Arhat fruit. Your statement is unreasonable. If you now say that the Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and attaining the Arhat fruit, then it should not be said that there are eight types of persons who are definitively established and not intermingled, namely, a person directed towards realizing the Stream-enterer fruit, up to and including a person directed towards realizing the Arhat fruit, and that there is certainly a person directed towards realizing the Stream-enterer fruit, up to and including a person directed towards realizing the Arhat fruit; saying that there are eight types of persons who are definitively established and not intermingled, namely, a person directed towards realizing the Stream-enterer fruit, up to and including a person directed towards realizing the Arhat fruit, and that there is certainly a person directed towards realizing the Stream-enterer fruit, up to and including a person directed towards realizing the Arhat fruit, is unreasonable. The other party says: The Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and will certainly attain the Arhat fruit. You should ask the other party: Do you agree with this statement? The other party is the other party. The answer is: I do not agree. Listen, you have failed. If the Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and will certainly attain the Arhat fruit, then it should be said that the other party is the other party, your statement is unreasonable. If you do not say that the other party is the other party, then it should not be said that the Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and will certainly attain the Arhat fruit; saying that the Arhat fruit is capable of being directed towards realizing and will certainly attain the Arhat fruit is unreasonable. If it is said: The other party is the other party. You should ask the other party: Do you agree with this statement? The other party being directed towards realization is abiding in the fruit. The answer is: I do not agree. Listen, you have failed. If the other party is the other party, then it should be said that the other party being directed towards realization is abiding in the fruit, your statement is unreasonable. If you do not say that the other party being directed towards realization is abiding in the fruit, then it should not be said that the other party is the other party; saying that the other party is the other party is unreasonable. Furthermore, if it is said: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？诸阿罗汉果能作证向，未全离贪、未全离慢、未全离无明，学有所作。阿罗汉果已全离贪、已全离慢、已全离无明，是其无学，所作已办。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？彼有所作即所作已办。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说彼有所作即所作已办，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼有所作即所作已办，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？诸阿罗汉果能作证向断别生阿罗汉果。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼异于彼，是则应说诸阿罗汉果能作证向断别生阿罗汉果，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸阿罗汉果，能作证向断别生阿罗汉果，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？诸阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果，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，是则应说诸阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸阿罗汉果能作证向得阿罗汉果，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， 现代汉语译本： 如果有人说‘彼即是彼’，应该这样问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，那些正在证向阿罗汉果（Arahan fruit，佛教修行的最高果位，断绝轮回）的人，还没有完全脱离贪欲、傲慢和无明（ignorance），他们还有需要继续努力的地方。而那些已经证得阿罗汉果的人，已经完全脱离了贪欲、傲慢和无明，他们是无学之人，该做的事情已经做完了。如果他回答说：‘是的，我认可。’那么就继续问他：‘那么你认可他们有所作为，也就是他们已经完成了所有的事情吗？’如果他回答说：‘不，我不认可。’那么你就让他认输。如果‘彼即是彼’成立，那么就应该说他们有所作为，也就是他们已经完成了所有的事情，但你却说不是这样，这是不合道理的。如果你不承认他们有所作为，也就是他们已经完成了所有的事情，那么就不应该说‘彼即是彼’；说‘彼即是彼’，也是不合道理的。 如果有人说：‘彼异于彼’，应该这样问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过断灭而获得不同的阿罗汉果。如果他回答说：‘不，我不认可。’那么你就让他认输。如果‘彼异于彼’成立，那么就应该说那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过断灭而获得不同的阿罗汉果，但你却说不是这样，这是不合道理的。如果你不承认那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过断灭而获得不同的阿罗汉果，那么就不应该说‘彼异于彼’；说‘彼异于彼’，也是不合道理的。 如果有人说：‘不可说彼或彼或异’，应该这样问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过证得阿罗汉果，而这种说法既不能说是‘彼’，也不能说是‘异’。如果他回答说：‘不，我不认可。’那么你就让他认输。如果‘不可说彼或彼或异’成立，那么就应该说那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过证得阿罗汉果，而这种说法既不能说是‘彼’，也不能说是‘异’，但你却说不是这样，这是不合道理的。如果你不承认那些正在证向阿罗汉果的人，能够通过证得阿罗汉果，而这种说法既不能说是‘彼’，也不能说是‘异’，那么就不应该说‘不可说彼或彼或异’；说‘不可说彼或彼或异’，也是不合道理的。 补特伽罗（Pudgala，意为‘人’或‘个体’，在某些佛教流派中指一种实在的实体）论者这样说：‘在真谛和胜义的层面，存在补特伽罗。’
English
English version: If someone says, 'That is that,' you should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat (Arahan fruit, the highest state of attainment in Buddhism, liberation from rebirth) have not completely abandoned greed, pride, and ignorance; they still have work to do. Those who have attained the fruit of Arhat have completely abandoned greed, pride, and ignorance; they are beyond learning, their work is done. If they answer, 'Yes, I affirm this,' then ask them further: 'Then do you affirm that their work is being done, that is, they have completed all their work?' If they answer, 'No, I do not affirm this,' then you should make them admit defeat. If 'That is that' is true, then it should be said that their work is being done, that is, they have completed all their work, but you say it is not so, which is unreasonable. If you do not acknowledge that their work is being done, that is, they have completed all their work, then you should not say 'That is that'; saying 'That is that' is also unreasonable. If someone says, 'That is different from that,' you should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain a different fruit of Arhat through cessation. If they answer, 'No, I do not affirm this,' then you should make them admit defeat. If 'That is different from that' is true, then it should be said that those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain a different fruit of Arhat through cessation, but you say it is not so, which is unreasonable. If you do not acknowledge that those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain a different fruit of Arhat through cessation, then you should not say 'That is different from that'; saying 'That is different from that' is also unreasonable. If someone says, 'It cannot be said that it is either that or different,' you should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain the fruit of Arhat, and this statement cannot be said to be either 'that' or 'different.' If they answer, 'No, I do not affirm this,' then you should make them admit defeat. If 'It cannot be said that it is either that or different' is true, then it should be said that those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain the fruit of Arhat, and this statement cannot be said to be either 'that' or 'different,' but you say it is not so, which is unreasonable. If you do not acknowledge that those who are progressing towards the fruit of Arhat can attain the fruit of Arhat, and this statement cannot be said to be either 'that' or 'different,' then you should not say 'It cannot be said that it is either that or different'; saying 'It cannot be said that it is either that or different' is also unreasonable. Those who advocate the Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'individual,' referring to a real entity in some Buddhist schools) theory say: 'In terms of ultimate truth and supreme meaning, there exists a Pudgala.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
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，如是三聚决定安立不相杂乱，谓不定聚、邪性定聚、正性定聚，决定别有不定聚、决定别有邪性定聚、决定别有正性定聚。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？有从不定聚入邪性定聚。彼答言：尔。汝听堕负。若有三聚决定安立不相杂乱，谓不定聚、邪性定聚、正性定聚，决定别有不定聚、决定别有邪性定聚、决定别有正性定聚，则不应说有从不定聚入邪性定聚，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说有从不定聚入邪性定聚，则不应说如是三聚决定安立不相杂乱，谓不定聚、邪性定聚、正性定聚，决定别有不定聚、决定别有邪性定聚、决定别有正性定聚；言有三聚决定安立不相杂乱，谓不定聚，邪性定聚，正性定聚，决定别有不定聚、决定别有邪性定聚、决定别有正性定聚，不应道理。彼作是言：定有从不定聚入邪性定聚。应问彼言：汝然此不？彼即是彼。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若定有从不定聚入邪性定聚，是则应说彼即是彼，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说彼即是彼，则不应言定有从不定聚入邪性定聚；言定有从不定聚入邪性定聚，不应道理。若作是言：彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？诸住不定聚即是住邪性定聚。 现代汉语译本： 主张实有自我的补特伽罗（Pudgala，意为‘人’或‘灵魂’）辩称，因为事物是可以获得、可以证明、现存的、并且是相互依存的，所以补特伽罗是真实存在的。持有性空论（Emptiness theory）的论者反驳说：‘你是否认可契经（Sutra，佛教经文）中，世尊（Buddha，佛陀）所说的善妙言语，即三种类别被明确地建立且互不混淆，它们是不定聚（indefinite group）、邪性定聚（group of fixed negativity）和正性定聚（group of fixed positivity）？这三种类别是明确区分的，不定聚是独立的，邪性定聚是独立的，正性定聚也是独立的。’ 对方回答：‘是的，我认可。’ 性空论者继续问：‘你是否认可有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚？’ 对方回答：‘是的，我认可。’ 性空论者说：‘那么你已经自相矛盾了。如果这三种类别被明确地建立且互不混淆，即不定聚、邪性定聚和正性定聚，并且这三种类别是明确区分的，那么就不应该说有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚。你这样说是没有道理的。如果你现在说有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚，那么就不应该说这三种类别被明确地建立且互不混淆，即不定聚、邪性定聚和正性定聚，并且这三种类别是明确区分的。’ 对方辩解说：‘确实有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚。’ 性空论者应该反问：‘你是否认可，从不定聚进入邪性定聚的人，就是原本处于不定聚中的那些人？’ 对方回答：‘不，我不认可。’ 性空论者说：‘那么你已经自相矛盾了。如果确实有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚，那么就应该说那些人就是原本处于不定聚中的那些人。你这样说是没有道理的。如果你不承认他们就是原本处于不定聚中的那些人，那么就不应该说确实有人可以从不定聚进入邪性定聚。’ 如果对方说：‘他们就是原本处于不定聚中的那些人。’，那么应该反问：‘你是否认可，所有处于不定聚中的人，也就是处于邪性定聚中的人？’