English
English version: This is a debate concerning what is reasonable. The Pudgalavadin (Pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'individual,' asserting the existence of an indivisible entity) states: 'The true, ultimate Pudgala (Pudgala) can be attained, can be realized, actually exists, and is eternally present; therefore, a Pudgala (Pudgala) must exist.' The Emptiness proponent (asserting that all phenomena lack inherent existence) counters: 'Do you accept this? In the Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures), the Blessed One (Shakyamuni Buddha) with skillful language, skillful words, and skillful teachings, clearly establishes three categories, which are not mixed up, namely the Indeterminate Group, the Definitely Evil Group, and the Definitely Good Group, clearly distinguishing the Indeterminate Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Evil Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Good Group.' The Pudgalavadin replies: 'Yes, I accept.' The Emptiness proponent continues: 'Do you accept this? Someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group.' The Pudgalavadin replies: 'Yes, I accept.' The Emptiness proponent says: 'You have contradicted yourself. If these three categories are clearly established and not mixed up, namely the Indeterminate Group, the Definitely Evil Group, and the Definitely Good Group, clearly distinguishing the Indeterminate Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Evil Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Good Group, then it should not be said that someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group; it is unreasonable for you to say this. If you now say that someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group, then it should not be said that these three categories are clearly established and not mixed up, namely the Indeterminate Group, the Definitely Evil Group, and the Definitely Good Group, clearly distinguishing the Indeterminate Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Evil Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Good Group; it is unreasonable to say that these three categories are clearly established and not mixed up, namely the Indeterminate Group, the Definitely Evil Group, and the Definitely Good Group, clearly distinguishing the Indeterminate Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Evil Group, clearly distinguishing the Definitely Good Group.' The Pudgalavadin says: 'Indeed, someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group.' The Emptiness proponent should retort: 'Do you accept this? That person is that person (referring to the same person before and after).' The Pudgalavadin replies: 'No, I do not accept.' The Emptiness proponent says: 'You have contradicted yourself. If indeed someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group, then it should be said that that person is that person; it is unreasonable for you to say this. If you do not acknowledge that that person is that person, then it should not be said that indeed someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group; it is unreasonable to say that indeed someone can go from the Indeterminate Group into the Definitely Good Group.' If it is said like this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
彼即是彼。应问彼言：汝然此不？诸住不定聚即是住正性定聚。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说诸住不定聚即是住正性定聚，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸住不定聚即是住正性定聚，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？诸住不定聚是有量福田，住正性定聚是无量福田。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？诸有量福田即是无量福田。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼即是彼，是则应说诸有量福田即是无量福田，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸有量福田即是无量福田，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？诸住不定聚断别生住正性定聚。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若彼异于彼，是则应说诸住不定聚断别生住正性定聚，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸住不定聚断别生住正性定聚，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？诸有从不定聚入正性定聚，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，是则应说诸有从不定聚入正性定聚，如是之言亦不可说或彼或异，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说诸有从不定聚入正性定聚，如是之 现代汉语译本： 如果有人说：‘彼即是彼。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，所有处于不定聚（Aniyatagotra，指未确定能否证悟的众生）状态的众生，就是处于正性定聚（Niyatagotra，指确定能够证悟的众生）状态的众生吗？’如果他回答：‘不是。’那么你就应该指出他的错误：‘如果‘彼即是彼’成立，那么就应该说所有处于不定聚状态的众生就是处于正性定聚状态的众生，但你的说法是不合理的。如果你不认为处于不定聚状态的众生就是处于正性定聚状态的众生，那么就不应该说‘彼即是彼’，所以‘彼即是彼’的说法是不合理的。’ 又如果有人说：‘彼即是彼。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，所有处于不定聚状态的众生是有量的福田，而处于正性定聚状态的众生是无量的福田吗？’如果他回答：‘是的。’再问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，所有有量的福田就是无量的福田吗？’如果他回答：‘不是。’那么你就应该指出他的错误：‘如果‘彼即是彼’成立，那么就应该说所有有量的福田就是无量的福田，但你的说法是不合理的。如果你不认为有量的福田就是无量的福田，那么就不应该说‘彼即是彼’，所以‘彼即是彼’的说法是不合理的。’ 如果有人说：‘彼异于彼。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，所有处于不定聚状态的众生，断绝了轮回，从而进入正性定聚状态吗？’如果他回答：‘不是。’那么你就应该指出他的错误：‘如果‘彼异于彼’成立，那么就应该说所有处于不定聚状态的众生，断绝了轮回，从而进入正性定聚状态，但你的说法是不合理的。如果你不认为处于不定聚状态的众生，断绝了轮回，从而进入正性定聚状态，那么就不应该说‘彼异于彼’，所以‘彼异于彼’的说法是不合理的。’ 如果有人说：‘不可说彼或彼或异。’应该问他：‘你认可这个说法吗？’意思是说，所有从不定聚进入正性定聚的众生，对于这种说法，也不可说是‘彼’、‘彼’或‘异’吗？’如果他回答：‘不是。’那么你就应该指出他的错误：‘如果‘不可说彼或彼或异’成立，那么就应该说所有从不定聚进入正性定聚的众生，对于这种说法，也不可说是‘彼’、‘彼’或‘异’，但你的说法是不合理的。如果你不认为所有从不定聚进入正性定聚的众生，对于这种说法，也不可说是‘彼’、‘彼’或‘异’，那么就…
English
English version: If someone says: 'That is that.' You should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, are all beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra (不定聚, those whose destiny of enlightenment is undetermined) the same as those abiding in the Niyatagotra (正性定聚, those whose destiny of enlightenment is assured)?' If they answer: 'No.' Then you should point out their error: 'If 'That is that' is true, then it should be said that all beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra are the same as those abiding in the Niyatagotra, but your statement is unreasonable. If you do not believe that beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra are the same as those abiding in the Niyatagotra, then you should not say 'That is that'; therefore, the statement 'That is that' is unreasonable.' Furthermore, if someone says: 'That is that.' You should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, are all beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra a limited field of merit, while those abiding in the Niyatagotra are an immeasurable field of merit?' If they answer: 'Yes.' Then ask them again: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, is every limited field of merit the same as an immeasurable field of merit?' If they answer: 'No.' Then you should point out their error: 'If 'That is that' is true, then it should be said that every limited field of merit is the same as an immeasurable field of merit, but your statement is unreasonable. If you do not believe that a limited field of merit is the same as an immeasurable field of merit, then you should not say 'That is that'; therefore, the statement 'That is that' is unreasonable.' If someone says: 'That is different from that.' You should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, do all beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra sever separate births and abide in the Niyatagotra?' If they answer: 'No.' Then you should point out their error: 'If 'That is different from that' is true, then it should be said that all beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra sever separate births and abide in the Niyatagotra, but your statement is unreasonable. If you do not believe that beings abiding in the Aniyatagotra sever separate births and abide in the Niyatagotra, then you should not say 'That is different from that'; therefore, the statement 'That is different from that' is unreasonable.' If someone says: 'It cannot be said that it is either that, that, or different.' You should ask them: 'Do you affirm this?' Meaning, for all those who enter the Niyatagotra from the Aniyatagotra, is it also impossible to say 'that,' 'that,' or 'different' regarding such a statement?' If they answer: 'No.' Then you should point out their error: 'If 'It cannot be said that it is either that, that, or different' is true, then it should be said that for all those who enter the Niyatagotra from the Aniyatagotra, it is also impossible to say 'that,' 'that,' or 'different' regarding such a statement, but your statement is unreasonable. If you do not believe that for all those who enter the Niyatagotra from the Aniyatagotra, it is also impossible to say 'that,' 'that,' or 'different' regarding such a statement, then... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
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。 说一切有部识身足论卷第二 大正藏第 26 册 No. 1539 阿毗达磨识身足论 阿毗达磨识身足论卷第三 提婆设摩阿罗汉造 三藏法师玄奘奉 诏译 补特伽罗蕴第二之二第一嗢拖南颂后 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，如是三种补特伽罗决定安立不相杂乱，谓学补特伽罗、无学补特伽罗、非学非无学补特伽罗。彼答言：尔。法亦三种，谓学法、无学法、非学非无学法。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？先是非学非无学补特伽罗次成学，既成学已后成无学，成无学已复成学补特伽罗。彼答言：尔。复问彼言：汝然此不？先是非学非无学法次成学，既成学已后成无学，成无学已复成学法。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若先是非学非无学补特伽罗次成学，既成学已后成无学，成无学已复成学补持伽罗，是则应说先是非学非无学法次成学，既成学已后成无学，成无学已复成学法，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说先是非学非无学法次成学，既成学已后成无学，成无学 现代汉语译本： 如果说‘言语无法表达它既是那个又是不同的’，那么就不应该说‘无法表达它既是那个又是那个又是不同的’；说‘无法表达它既是那个又是那个又是不同的’，这是不合道理的。 《说一切有部识身足论》卷第二 《大正藏》第26册 No. 1539 《阿毗达磨识身足论》 《阿毗达磨识身足论》卷第三 提婆设摩（Devasarma，人名）阿罗汉造 三藏法师玄奘奉 诏译 补特伽罗蕴（Pudgalaskandha，补特伽罗之蕴）第二之二第一嗢拖南颂（Udanasutra，总摄颂）后 补特伽罗论者（Pudgalavadin，主张有补特伽罗的论者）这样说：‘谛义胜义补特伽罗（Paramarthasatya-pudgala，在真实意义上存在的补特伽罗），是可以获得、可以证悟、是现有、是等有的，因此必定有补特伽罗。’性空论者（Sunyavadin，主张一切法性空的论者）这样问：‘你认可这个吗？’就是说，在契经（Sutra，佛经）中，世尊（Bhagavan，佛）善巧地用美好的言辞和说法，这样三种补特伽罗被确定地安立，不互相混淆，即学补特伽罗（Saiksa-pudgala，有学的补特伽罗）、无学补特伽罗（Asaiksa-pudgala，无学的补特伽罗）、非学非无学补特伽罗（Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-pudgala，非有学非无学的补特伽罗）。他回答说：‘是的。’法（Dharma，佛法）也有三种，即学法（Saiksa-dharma，有学之法）、无学法（Asaiksa-dharma，无学之法）、非学非无学法（Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma，非有学非无学之法）。他回答说：‘是的。’又问他说：‘你认可这个吗？’先是非学非无学补特伽罗，然后成为有学，已经成为有学之后，成为无学，成为无学之后，又成为有学补特伽罗。他回答说：‘是的。’又问他说：‘你认可这个吗？’先是非学非无学法，然后成为有学，已经成为有学之后，成为无学，成为无学之后，又成为有学法。’回答说：‘不是这样的。’‘你听着，你已经失败了。如果先是非学非无学补特伽罗，然后成为有学，已经成为有学之后，成为无学，成为无学之后，又成为有学补特伽罗，那么就应该说先是非学非无学法，然后成为有学，已经成为有学之后，成为无学，成为无学之后，又成为有学法，你说这样的话是不合道理的。如果你不说先是非学非无学法，然后成为有学，已经成为有学之后，成为无学，成无学