English
English version: If it is said that 'speech cannot express it as being either that or different,' then it should not be said that 'it cannot be expressed as being either that or that or different'; saying 'it cannot be expressed as being either that or that or different' is unreasonable. Sarvastivada Vijnanakaya-pada-sastra, Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 26, No. 1539, Abhidharma-vijnanakaya-pada-sastra Abhidharma-vijnanakaya-pada-sastra, Volume 3 Composed by Devasarma (Devasarma, name of a person), an Arhat Translated under imperial decree by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang After the first Udanasutra (Udanasutra, summarizing verse) of the second part of the Pudgalaskandha (Pudgalaskandha, aggregate of the Pudgala) The Pudgalavadin (Pudgalavadin, proponents of the existence of Pudgala) say thus: 'The Paramarthasatya-pudgala (Paramarthasatya-pudgala, Pudgala existing in the ultimate sense), is attainable, realizable, existent, and equally existent; therefore, there definitely exists a Pudgala.' The Sunyavadin (Sunyavadin, proponents of the emptiness of all dharmas) ask thus: 'Do you affirm this?' That is to say, in the Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures), the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the Buddha) skillfully uses beautiful words and teachings, and these three types of Pudgalas are definitively established, not intermingled, namely the Saiksa-pudgala (Saiksa-pudgala, Pudgala in training), the Asaiksa-pudgala (Asaiksa-pudgala, Pudgala beyond training), and the Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-pudgala (Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-pudgala, Pudgala neither in training nor beyond training). He replies: 'Yes.' There are also three types of Dharmas (Dharma, Buddhist teachings), namely the Saiksa-dharma (Saiksa-dharma, Dharma of training), the Asaiksa-dharma (Asaiksa-dharma, Dharma beyond training), and the Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma (Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma, Dharma neither in training nor beyond training). He replies: 'Yes.' Again, he is asked: 'Do you affirm this? That first there is a Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-pudgala, then one becomes a Saiksa, having become a Saiksa, then one becomes an Asaiksa, having become an Asaiksa, then one again becomes a Saiksa-pudgala.' He replies: 'Yes.' Again, he is asked: 'Do you affirm this? That first there is a Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma, then one becomes a Saiksa, having become a Saiksa, then one becomes an Asaiksa, having become an Asaiksa, then one again becomes a Saiksa-dharma.' He replies: 'That is not so.' 'Listen, you have been defeated. If first there is a Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-pudgala, then one becomes a Saiksa, having become a Saiksa, then one becomes an Asaiksa, having become an Asaiksa, then one again becomes a Saiksa-pudgala, then it should be said that first there is a Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma, then one becomes a Saiksa, having become a Saiksa, then one becomes an Asaiksa, having become an Asaiksa, then one again becomes a Saiksa-dharma, it is unreasonable for you to say such a thing. If you do not say that first there is a Naiva-saiksa-naivasiksa-dharma, then one becomes a Saiksa, having become a Saiksa, then one becomes an Asaiksa, having become an Asaiksa --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
已复成学法，则不应说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；言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，不应道理。 补特伽罗论者作如是言：有我、有情、命者、生者、养育、士夫、补特伽罗，由有补特伽罗故能造诸业，或顺乐受、或顺苦受、或顺不苦不乐受。彼造顺乐受业已领受乐受，造顺苦受业已领受苦受，造顺不苦不乐受业已领受不苦不乐受。性空论者作是问言：汝然此不？自作苦乐。答言：不尔。汝听堕负。若有我、有情、命者、生者、养育、士夫、补特伽罗，由有补特伽罗故能造诸业，或顺乐受、或顺苦受、或顺不苦不乐受。彼造顺乐受业已领受乐受，造顺苦受业已领受苦受，造顺不苦不乐受业已受不苦不乐受，是则应说自作苦乐，汝作是言不应道理。若汝不说自作苦乐，则不应说有我、有情、命者、生者、养育、士夫、补特伽罗，由有补特伽罗故能造诸业，或顺乐受、或顺苦受、或顺不苦不乐受。彼造顺乐受业已领受乐受，造顺苦受业已领受苦受，造顺不苦不乐受业已受不苦不乐受；言有我、有情、命者、生者、养育、士夫、补特伽罗，由有补特伽罗故能造诸业，或顺乐受、或顺苦受、或顺不苦不乐受。彼造顺乐 现代汉语译本：如果已经完成了学法，就不应该说先是非学非无学补特伽罗（Pudgala，人或个体）然后成为有学者，已经成为有学者之后又成为无学者，成为无学者之后又再次成为有学补特伽罗；说先是非学非无学补特伽罗然后成为有学者，已经成为有学者之后又成为无学者，成为无学者之后又再次成为有学补特伽罗，这是不合道理的。 补特伽罗论者这样说：存在‘我’、‘有情’（众生）、‘命者’（有生命者）、‘生者’（出生者）、‘养育’（被养育者）、‘士夫’（丈夫）、‘补特伽罗’（人或个体），因为有补特伽罗，所以能够造作各种业，或者顺应乐受，或者顺应苦受，或者顺应不苦不乐受。他们造作顺应乐受的业之后就领受乐受，造作顺应苦受的业之后就领受苦受，造作顺应不苦不乐受的业之后就领受不苦不乐受。性空论者这样问道：你认可这个说法吗？自己造作苦乐。回答说：不认可。你听着，你已经认输了。如果存在‘我’、‘有情’、‘命者’、‘生者’、‘养育’、‘士夫’、‘补特伽罗’，因为有补特伽罗，所以能够造作各种业，或者顺应乐受，或者顺应苦受，或者顺应不苦不乐受。他们造作顺应乐受的业之后就领受乐受，造作顺应苦受的业之后就领受苦受，造作顺应不苦不乐受的业之后就领受不苦不乐受，那么就应该说自己造作苦乐，你说不认可这个说法是不合道理的。如果你不认可自己造作苦乐的说法，那么就不应该说存在‘我’、‘有情’、‘命者’、‘生者’、‘养育’、‘士夫’、‘补特伽罗’，因为有补特伽罗，所以能够造作各种业，或者顺应乐受，或者顺应苦受，或者顺应不苦不乐受。他们造作顺应乐受的业之后就领受乐受，造作顺应苦受的业之后就领受苦受，造作顺应不苦不乐受的业之后就领受不苦不乐受；说存在‘我’、‘有情’、‘命者’、‘生者’、‘养育’、‘士夫’、‘补特伽罗’，因为有补特伽罗，所以能够造作各种业，或者顺应乐受
English
English version: If the learning process has been completed, it should not be said that a non-learner/non-non-learner Pudgala (person or individual) first becomes a learner, then after becoming a learner, becomes a non-learner, and after becoming a non-learner, again becomes a learner Pudgala. To say that a non-learner/non-non-learner Pudgala first becomes a learner, then after becoming a learner, becomes a non-learner, and after becoming a non-learner, again becomes a learner Pudgala, is unreasonable. The Pudgalavada (Personalist) proponents say this: There exists a 'self', 'sentient being', 'life-force', 'one who is born', 'one who is nourished', 'man', 'Pudgala' (person or individual). Because there is a Pudgala, one is able to create various karmas, either in accordance with pleasant feeling, or in accordance with painful feeling, or in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Having created karma in accordance with pleasant feeling, they experience pleasant feeling; having created karma in accordance with painful feeling, they experience painful feeling; having created karma in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, they experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. The proponents of emptiness ask this: Do you accept this? That one creates one's own suffering and happiness. They answer: No, I do not. Listen, you have admitted defeat. If there exists a 'self', 'sentient being', 'life-force', 'one who is born', 'one who is nourished', 'man', 'Pudgala', because there is a Pudgala, one is able to create various karmas, either in accordance with pleasant feeling, or in accordance with painful feeling, or in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Having created karma in accordance with pleasant feeling, they experience pleasant feeling; having created karma in accordance with painful feeling, they experience painful feeling; having created karma in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, they experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, then it should be said that one creates one's own suffering and happiness. It is unreasonable for you to say that you do not accept this. If you do not accept that one creates one's own suffering and happiness, then you should not say that there exists a 'self', 'sentient being', 'life-force', 'one who is born', 'one who is nourished', 'man', 'Pudgala', because there is a Pudgala, one is able to create various karmas, either in accordance with pleasant feeling, or in accordance with painful feeling, or in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Having created karma in accordance with pleasant feeling, they experience pleasant feeling; having created karma in accordance with painful feeling, they experience painful feeling; having created karma in accordance with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, they experience neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; to say that there exists a 'self', 'sentient being', 'life-force', 'one who is born', 'one who is nourished', 'man', 'Pudgala', because there is a Pudgala, one is able to create various karmas, either in accordance with pleasant feeling --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
受业已领受乐受，造顺苦受业已领受苦受，造顺不苦不乐受业已受不苦不乐受，不应道理。若作是言：自作苦乐。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢即受即领诸有欲令自作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说。彼答言：尔。汝听堕负。若自作苦乐，则不应言谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢即受即领诸有欲令自作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢即受即领诸有欲令自作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说，则不应言自作苦乐；言自作苦乐，不应道理。若作是言：他作苦乐。应问彼言：汝然此不？谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢异受异领若有欲令他作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说。彼答言！尔。汝听堕负。若他作苦乐，则不应言谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢异受异领诸有欲令他作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说，汝作是言不应道理。汝今若说谓契经中世尊善语善词善说，为钻部卢出家外道说，钻部卢异受异领诸有欲令他作苦乐，此钻部卢！我终不说，则不应言他作苦乐；言他作苦乐，不应道理。 补特伽罗论者作如是言：有我、 现代汉语译本 受了导致乐受的业，就已领受了乐受；造了导致苦受的业，就已领受了苦受；造了导致不苦不乐受的业，就已领受了不苦不乐受，这种说法是不合道理的。如果有人说：‘苦乐是自己造成的。’应该问他：‘你认可这种说法吗？’因为契经中，世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢（Drumbu，人名）出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要自己造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’如果他回答说：‘认可。’那么你就要认输。如果说苦乐是自己造成的，就不应该说契经中世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要自己造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’你说这种话是不合道理的。你现在如果说契经中世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要自己造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’那么就不应该说苦乐是自己造成的；说苦乐是自己造成的，是不合道理的。 如果有人说：‘苦乐是他人造成的。’应该问他：‘你认可这种说法吗？’因为契经中，世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要他人造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’如果他回答说：‘认可。’那么你就要认输。如果说苦乐是他人造成的，就不应该说契经中世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要他人造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’你说这种话是不合道理的。你现在如果说契经中世尊用美好的语言、美好的词句、美好的说法，为旃部卢出家的外道说：‘旃部卢，凡是想要他人造成苦乐的，我终究不会这样说。’那么就不应该说苦乐是他人造成的；说苦乐是他人造成的，是不合道理的。 补特伽罗（Pudgala，人）论者这样说：‘有我（ātman）。’
English
English version Having performed actions that lead to pleasant feelings, one has already experienced pleasant feelings; having performed actions that lead to painful feelings, one has already experienced painful feelings; having performed actions that lead to neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings, one has already experienced neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings. This is unreasonable. If someone says: 'Suffering and happiness are self-made,' one should ask them: 'Do you agree with this?' Because in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu (Drumbu, a name), saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires to create suffering and happiness for themselves.' If he answers: 'I agree,' then you should concede defeat. If suffering and happiness are self-made, then one should not say that in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu, saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires to create suffering and happiness for themselves.' What you say is unreasonable. If you now say that in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu, saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires to create suffering and happiness for themselves,' then one should not say that suffering and happiness are self-made; saying that suffering and happiness are self-made is unreasonable. If someone says: 'Suffering and happiness are made by others,' one should ask them: 'Do you agree with this?' Because in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu, saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires others to create suffering and happiness for them.' If he answers: 'I agree,' then you should concede defeat. If suffering and happiness are made by others, then one should not say that in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu, saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires others to create suffering and happiness for them.' What you say is unreasonable. If you now say that in the sutras, the World-Honored One spoke with good words, good phrases, and good explanations to the ascetic Drumbu, saying: 'Drumbu, I would never say that anyone desires others to create suffering and happiness for them,' then one should not say that suffering and happiness are made by others; saying that suffering and happiness are made by others is unreasonable. The Pudgalavadins (Pudgala, person) say thus: 'There is a self (ātman).' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------