English
Now, it is because it is different from the sprout. It is impossible for things to arise without a cause, but in the way the mind clings to arising, it is possible for a mind to arise thinking, "This is without a cause." In order to dispel other extremes of doubt, since the uncaused does not rely on others, it will "always exist or not exist." This is because of such reasoning, and because most things are manifestly seen to arise from causes, it is not without a cause. If it arises from a cause, then that cause must be one of three possibilities: from the thing itself, from something other than that, or from both itself and others. First, it is unreasonable to arise from itself, because if it is already established, there is no need to arise; and if the self that arises is not established, there is no cause from which it arises. It is also unreasonable to arise from something else, because if the immediate cause of each does not belong to its own continuum, then no matter what kind of other conditions are gathered, it will not arise. It is also not from both, because if it arises from both, it will become arising from its own nature, and it will also become arising from another nature, so it will fall into both faults. If it arises from its own nature, then arising from another nature is meaningless; and if it arises from another nature, then the other is also meaningless. Even if it arises from one of its own nature or another nature, it is meaningless to arise from both, because if it does not arise from its own nature and does not arise from another nature, then it is also established that it does not arise from both. If it is thought that it arises from the aggregation of both, then is that aggregation the nature of both self and other? Or is it another nature that arises from the aggregation of those two? If it is the former, then the previous fault will apply; if it is the latter, then it is only otherness, so the fault of saying that it arises from otherness will apply. Similarly, a present thing does not arise from the past, because if that cause has not passed, then it is only present, so it will not become past; and if it has passed, then it does not exist at the time of the result, and the continuous connection is not established, so it is not related to the producer. A present thing also does not arise from the present, because a present thing that has already arisen does not need to be produced again. The future also does not do anything in the present time, so it is not reasonable as both the thing to be produced and the producer. In the future time, the future thing is an action
Chinese
即使允许它发生，但那时它已经是发生过且未停止的，所以仅仅是现在。因为无中生无是不合理的。过去不可能产生过去，未来也不可能产生未来。这些也可以应用于自生和他生的观点上，并从三个时态进行分析。如果认为从过去的自性产生现在的自性，那不是从自性产生，因为那样会变成从过去的彼性产生现在的彼性。即使两个现在的自性成为所依和能依的因，这也不是自生，因为所生和能生的自性特征不同，所以仅仅变成他生。如果认为从过去的瓶子产生现在的瓶子是他生，那么过去的瓶子和现在的瓶子，地点相同，形状相同，性质也相同，因为依赖于前一刹那的相续而产生后一刹那。所以，这两者不会变成他性，因为它们依赖于同一个相续。仅仅因为反体不同，并不能成立是他性。此外，从自和他二者的集合中，是产生单独的自，还是产生单独的彼，还是产生自和他二者，还是产生非自非他呢？逐一分析，每一种都不合理。如果像第一种情况那样，会变成从自和他的集合中产生，因此就是他生，并且会有自性从自性中产生的过失。如果像第二种情况那样，因为作为因的自和他二者都与果不同，所以就是他生。如果像第三种情况那样，果的自性方面与第一种情况相同，彼性方面与第二种情况相同。如果在这二生的情况下，是从自产生彼，以及从彼产生彼，那么关于自生和他生的论述的过失仍然存在。同样，过去不可能产生过去，如果后一个过去开始产生时就是过去，那么就会导致存在先前没有经历过的过去，以及在未产生之前就已经停止的情况。如果那时不是过去，那么就是从过去产生了非过去，而不是从过去产生过去。未来不可能产生未来，因为由于未产生，所以是产生彼性的
English
Even if it were allowed to happen, at that time it is only the present, because it has already happened and has not ceased. Because it is unreasonable for nothing to arise from nothing. It is not possible for the past to produce the past, nor is it possible for the future to produce the future. These can also be applied to the views of self-origination and other-origination, and analyzed from the three times. If it is thought that the present self arises from the past self, that is not arising from the self, because that would become the other present arising from the other past. Even if the two present selves become the cause of the supported and the supporter, this is not self-origination, because the characteristics of the produced and the producer are different, so it becomes only other-origination. If it is thought that the present pot arises from the past pot as other-origination, then the past pot and the present pot, the place is the same, the shape is the same, and the nature is also the same, because the latter arises depending on the continuum of the previous moment. Therefore, these two do not become other, because they depend on the same continuum. It is not established as otherness merely because the reverse aspect is different. Furthermore, from the collection of both self and other, does the single self arise, or does the single other arise, or do both self and other arise, or does something that is neither self nor other arise? Analyzing each one, none is reasonable. If it is like the first case, it would become arising from the collection of self and other, therefore it is other-origination, and there would be the fault of self arising from self. If it is like the second case, because both the self and other that are the cause are different from the result, it is other-origination. If it is like the third case, the self aspect of the result is the same as the first case, and the other aspect is the same as the second case. If in this case of two-origination, the other arises from the self, and the other arises from the other, then the faults of the statements about self-origination and other-origination still remain. Similarly, the past cannot produce the past, if the later past is past from the beginning of its arising, then it would follow that there is a past that has not been previously experienced, and that there is cessation from before it has arisen. If it is not past at that time, then it is that the non-past has arisen from the past, but not the past from the past. The future cannot produce the future, because it is other-producing due to not having arisen.
Chinese
因为作为原因也是相违背的，已经产生的和未产生的也是相违背的。这样一来，四边的产生没有成立，三时的产生没有成立。因此，就实相而言，产生没有成立，只是世俗的显现，只是错觉，只是缘起，如幻的产生也是，因为在错觉中存在，所以在胜义谛中是不存在的。但在未经观察分析的情况下，如同显现的那样，只是在世俗中承认产生一样，从他而生也是会发生的。有些人说从他而生在世间也是没有的，这只不过是咬文嚼字而已，与世间的经验也是不相符的，因为他生的意义在世间人的俱生智中是显现的。如果仅仅因为不使用名称就认为它不存在，那么，因为世间没有坏聚见等的名称，所以在俱生智中它也会不存在。而且，因为没有四边的产生，所以智慧是无生的，并且由此所代表的一切事物，因为没有成立为产生的自性，所以智慧也不是那样的产生，但它也不是非存在，因为它是被体验的。它因为是刹那生灭的，所以不是常恒的，并且无常也没有存在的机会，不驻留的也没有毁灭的因，所以无常也只是由心所假立的，而不是实相。因为从因缘聚合中无碍地显现，所以这不是断灭，也不是其他的常恒。在仲弥的译文中，关于事物产生等，以事物的方式产生，事物自己的自性是，不是常恒也不是无常，这是极度不间断的。这样说很容易理解，如果与汉文相符就更好了。这样一来，事物只是以世俗的方式显现为产生，而不是以自己的自性成立产生，并且以自己的自性不是常恒也不是无常，但在世俗中是处于常恒的延续中。这样一来，以因缘聚合的缘起之自性或方式，低处和高处，陆地和水等，对于稳定的事物来说是以有境的方式，对于运动的众生来说是以自体验的方式，即器情。
English
Because being a cause is also contradictory, and what has already arisen and what has not yet arisen are also contradictory. Thus, the arising of the four extremes is not established, and the arising of the three times is not established. Therefore, in terms of reality, arising is not established, it is only a conventional appearance, only an illusion, only interdependence, and even the arising like a magic trick is, because it exists in illusion, it does not exist in ultimate truth. But without investigation or analysis, just as it appears, just as one accepts arising only in convention, arising from others also occurs. Some say that arising from others does not exist even in the world, which is just quibbling over words, and it is also inconsistent with worldly experience, because the meaning of arising from others appears in the innate wisdom of worldly people. If it becomes non-existent merely because a term is not used, then, because there is no term such as the view of the aggregates in the world, it will also become non-existent in innate wisdom. Moreover, because there is no arising of the four extremes, wisdom is unborn, and all things represented by it, because they are not established as the nature of arising, wisdom is not such an arising either, but it is not non-existent either, because it is experienced. Because it is momentary arising and ceasing, it is not permanent, and impermanence has no opportunity to exist, and what does not abide has no cause for destruction, so impermanence is also only imputed by the mind, and is not reality. Because it arises unhindered from the assembly of causes and conditions, this is neither annihilation nor another permanence. In Drogmi's translation, regarding the arising of things, etc., arising in the manner of things, the self-nature of things is, neither permanent nor impermanent, this is supremely uninterrupted. This is easy to understand, and it would be better if it matched the Chinese. Thus, things only appear to arise in a conventional way, but arising is not established by their own nature, and although they are neither permanent nor impermanent by their own nature, they remain in a continuous permanence in convention. Thus, by the nature or manner of interdependence of the assembly of causes and conditions, low and high places, land and water, etc., for stable things, it is in the manner of the container, and for moving sentient beings, it is in the manner of self-experience, that is, the environment and beings.
Chinese
的一切众生中遍布而安住。这些词语的生灭、常断、事物有无等等，已说是远离一切戏论。然而，并非确定是名相之义的智慧，因为一切法皆具戏论之自性，并且是譬喻智慧的延续。因此，在前面所说的自生，以及在“安住”的疑问解答中，如果乐空双运是自生且恒常安住的，那么会变成未生之事物和常有之实物的想法，是为了断除这种疑虑。因为这是解释“安住”之词义的时候，所以解释为：以常之相续而安住，以缘起之方式而安住，以同类而遍布安住。这仅仅是引出讨论主题词义的延续。至于ཨེ་（藏文，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）字和尼等，如果认为可以用明点之乐等词语来表示那样的譬喻智慧，但ཨེ་ཝཾ་（藏文，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）等与声音意义没有关联，所以不应该表示。那么，那样的智慧及其状态和特征，无论是用戏论等声音，还是用明点之乐等声音，或者用ཨེ་ཝཾ་（藏文，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）等声音变调，都无法表示，因为这仅仅是经验的领域。声音变调是指在世间和论典中不为人所知的。仅仅通过象征性的方法，就像那些可以表示一样，ཨེ་ཝཾ་（藏文，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）等也可以表示。因此，梵语等声音清晰的语言，以及声音变调的野蛮语言，还有如来之密语，这些也都不是与实相相悖而存在的，因为不可言说超越了一切声音概念。现在发生，是因为那最初平等的智慧仅仅是刹那的自性，所以必定从一切言语的范围中解脱。在《འབྲོག་འགྱུར་（地名）》中，没有“现在发生”这个词，而是出现“各自产生之自性”，意思是说，在灌顶的时候，各自自己所证悟的经验仅仅是其领域。这种说法更容易理解，所以很好。第二，解释所说之义的详细分类，分为三部分：确定譬喻之义的智慧，将此与经文结合，以及有无的