Early Monastic Buddhism v2.c36.83

v2.c36.83

The Th. deny the existence of a feeler or enjoyer apart from *vipākapavatti*, (that which is realised, the fructification of an effect). The Sam. hold that *paṭisaṃveditabba* is *vipāka* (result) but the *puggala* is not *vipāka*.¹ They further state that Nibbāna or Mahāpathavi, etc. is not *vipāka* like divine happiness (*dibbasukha) or human happiness (manussasukha) so none of them is an object of enjoyment of the *puggala* but again the Sam. do not admit that *sukha* is distinct from the *sukha*-enjoyer. The Th. logically wanted to make their opponents admit that there must be not only an enjoyer of a fruit but also an enjoyer of the enjoyer of the fruit and so on an endless chain, in other words, according to them, as shown above *dukkha* can have no end.