English
Completely disintegrating and holding the stage of the sprout, and not staying there, it completely disintegrates, completely holding the stage of the fruit, and not constantly staying there, it will eventually disintegrate. Furthermore, the ability to defile the mindstream also arises from the power of impermanence, from a state that was previously undefiled, being completely guided by moments, causing the mindstream to be newly tainted by defilement, driven by afflictions, actions completely imprinting habits on the mind, and even the habits, the initial moment is only planting the habit, not yet beginning the maturation of the habit, it also disintegrates in a moment, and then moment by moment holding the stage of the maturation of the habit, the moment of the maturation of the habit completely disintegrates, from which the fruit manifests, and not staying there, the fruit will eventually disintegrate, therefore feeling fear and suffering. Therefore, all suffering arises from the reason of impermanence. Third, establishing the emptiness of the agent, in general, those who assert an agent hold dissimilar causes as causes, this is a deluded mind of inverted clinging, which is the gateway to all faults. Furthermore, for example, holding that a sprout arises from permanence, holding a non-cause as a cause is an inverted and confused mind, however, like admitting an agent, it is not the gateway to the arising of all faults. Moreover, all the happiness and suffering of the world also arises from the power of virtue and non-virtue, creating evil deeds, experiencing the result of suffering, performing virtuous deeds, thereby experiencing the result of happiness, also the agent initially creates them separately for sentient beings, therefore, although generally speaking, the result of happiness and suffering must arise from virtuous and non-virtuous deeds, in special cases it is not so certain, if the agent's god is pleased, even performing evil deeds will experience the result of happiness, if the agent's god is not pleased, even performing virtuous deeds will produce the result of suffering, etc., because they assert that uncreated karma is encountered, created karma is wasted, and the results of karma are uncertain, etc., the cause and effect of
Chinese
因此，所有应舍应取的都变成颠倒，对于应取应舍之处，产生了极其严重的懈怠，这是无尽的恶见之门。其中，释迦<发髻>仙人所宣说的数论外道，虽然不承认作者的补特伽罗，但以“主”之名所宣说的，认为具有尘、暗、力三者相等状态的物质是常恒的，是世间一切的作者。还有一些人认为地、水、火、风等四大种，以及时间和文字等是作者。这些人虽然承认作者，但不承认作者的补特伽罗。然而，其他大多数外道都认为作者的补特伽罗，名为自在天，是常恒的，认为有一个能支配一切事物的主宰，创造了器世间和众生的苦乐等一切。如此一来，像那样的作者，因为是刹那刹那坏灭和存在的，没有自主，所以是痛苦的。因此，从先前所认为的常恒和支配者的地位上退失，变成了无常和没有自主，这不是你们不希望的结果降临了吗？再者，以自在天第一个刹那作为因，产生了果自在天第二个刹那的时候，自在天第一个刹那因为没有自主而坏灭，所以不是常恒，也没有自主。那么，你们是否认为完全不承认能作者，所作和业这三者的作者呢？并非不承认那样，然而，那不是无常的，也不是独自具有自主的，而是承认具有众多其他因缘助伴的作者。例如，能作者陶师，对于所作的瓶子，以线、轮和泥土等作为成就瓶子的因缘，像这样承认作为各种因缘助伴的无常自性的作者。因此，如你们外道所认为的那样，作者是常恒的，是支配者，是唯一的，像那样的事物在一般所知中是不可能存在的。即使假设存在那样的事物，它也无法对任何事物起作用。
English
Therefore, all that should be abandoned and adopted becomes inverted, and with regard to what should be adopted and abandoned, extremely serious negligence arises, which is a great inexhaustible door of evil views. Among them, the non-Buddhist Samkhya school, which was fully taught by the sage with <matted hair>, although they do not accept the agent as a person, they teach by the name of "chief" that a permanent substance with equal parts of dust, darkness, and power is the creator of all the world. Some also consider the elements, time, letters, etc., as creators. Although these people accept the agent, they do not accept the agent as a person. However, most other non-Buddhists believe that the agent is a person called Ishvara, who is permanent and who controls all things, creating the container world and the happiness and suffering of sentient beings. In that case, such an agent, because it is impermanent and exists momentarily, has no autonomy and is therefore suffering. Therefore, it deviates from the permanence and control that was previously assumed, and becomes impermanent and without autonomy. Isn't that the undesirable result that has befallen you? Furthermore, when the first moment of Ishvara is taken as the cause, and the second moment of the fruit Ishvara is born, the first moment of Ishvara is destroyed without autonomy, so it is not permanent and has no autonomy. So, do you think that you do not accept the agent of the three actions of doing, being done, and action at all? It is not that we do not accept such a thing, but it is not impermanent, nor is it solely autonomous, but we accept an agent with many other causal friends. For example, the agent potter, for the pot to be made, uses thread, wheel, and clay as the cause of accomplishing the pot, and in this way, we accept the agent of impermanent nature as a helper of various causes. Therefore, as you non-Buddhists believe, the agent is permanent, is the controller, and is the only one. Such a thing is generally impossible to exist in what is knowable. Even if we assume that such a thing exists, it cannot act on anything.
Chinese
如果能够，统治整个世界的事情都不能做到，更不用说其他的了。而且，如果作者是常恒的，那么他所创造的内外事物依次产生是相违背的。例如，常恒的作者所创造的春天的花朵的季节，以及夏天的雨季和秋天的果实的季节等依次产生是相违背的。如果自在是常恒的，那么他所创造的春天的花朵就必须恒常存在，而且它们必须同时持续不断地出现，因为那样是荒谬的。因为那样与显而易见的事实相矛盾。如果说这没有过失，因为自在虽然是常恒的，但它是通过他的意愿依次产生的。例如，就像在前面提到的那个时候，产生那个事物一样，依靠想要产生的心愿而依次产生。如果这样说，那么作者是唯一的说法就是相违背的，因为作者和作者所产生的意愿两者已经出现。如果说这也没有过失，因为自在和意愿两者本体不是他异的，而且是一体的。那么，就应该问他一体的方式是什么？是自在与意愿在对境上是一体，还是意愿与对境自在是一体？如果是前者，那么作者自在就会变成多个，因为与多个意愿是一体的缘故。如果是后者，那么意愿也会变成常恒的，因为与常恒的作者是一体的缘故。如果也承认这一点，那么认为万物是依次产生，依靠依次产生而出现的说法就会崩溃，因为如果意愿是常恒的，那么它就没有次第，而且它所产生的万物依次产生也是相违背的。又如果自在和意愿两者是他异的，但是因为原因是自在，结果是产生意愿，并且由此产生这个各种各样的世界，所以就不会有如上所说的过失，如果这样想。那么，自在就会变成无常的，因为它具有因果的自性。此外，如果产生这些各种各样的事物，原因有自在和他的意愿等等其他很多，那么就是依
English
If capable, even the act of ruling the entire world cannot be done, what need is there to mention anything else? Moreover, if the creator is permanent, then the sequential arising of these internal and external objects created by him is contradictory. For example, the sequential arising of the season of spring flowers, the season of summer rain, and the season of autumn fruits, all created by the permanent creator, is contradictory. If Ishvara is permanent, then the spring flower created by him must remain permanent, and they must all arise simultaneously and continuously, which is absurd. Because such a thing contradicts what is plainly evident. If it is said that there is no fault in this, because although Ishvara is permanent, he generates things sequentially through his will. For example, just as at that particular time mentioned earlier, that particular object should be generated, it arises sequentially based on the desire to generate it. If you say this, then the assertion that the creator is one alone is contradictory, because both the creator and the will generated by him have arisen. If it is said that there is no fault in this either, because Ishvara and will are not different in essence, and are one. Then, one should ask how they are one. Is Ishvara one with will in terms of the object, or is will one with Ishvara in terms of the object? If it is the former, then the creator Ishvara would become multiple, because he is one with multiple wills. If it is the latter, then will would also become permanent, because it is one with the permanent creator. If you also accept this, then the assertion that various objects arise sequentially, and that they arise based on sequential generation, collapses. Because if will is permanent, then it has no sequence, and the sequential arising of the objects generated by it is also contradictory. Furthermore, if Ishvara and will are different, but because the cause is Ishvara and the result is the generation of will, and through that this diverse world is generated, then the faults mentioned above would not apply, if you think this way. Then, Ishvara would become impermanent, because he has the nature of cause and effect. Moreover, if there are many other causes for generating these various objects, such as Ishvara and his will, then it is dependently aris
Chinese
因为与虚空相同，所以说造物主常恒就能创造一切世界，这种说法完全破灭了。又有人说，自在虽然不是无常，但作为因果并不矛盾，因为是常恒的因果。如果是这样，那么作为因的常恒造物主，就会产生想要的结果。想要次第产生是矛盾的，因为这个矛盾，所以内外的事物也次第产生是矛盾的。对此没有过失，即使造物主是常恒的，但它和想要两者之间没有联系，想要和各种各样的东西之间也没有联系，如果这样认为。如果这样脱离了两种联系，那么自在就不再是造物主了，因为对于任何事物都没有联系。因此，造物主的自性完全放弃了创造这个复杂世界的行为。因此，外道徒们说，造物主的常一自在的补特伽罗是至上的我，由他所创造的各个有情的补特伽罗的我，常一自在者，是至上的我所统治的对象。还有，自在需要依赖想要，因此它本身就不是自在的了，因为想要产生“应该创造这个和这个”的想法，是从不自在中产生的，如果自在，也就不需要产生的想要了。因此，一旦有了想要，就会想要舍弃自身本性的痛苦，并且想要获得快乐和幸福，因此就不是自在的了。如果是自在的，就必须和它同时产生，但事实并非如此，因为它依赖于想要的努力。因此，造物主自在是刹那无常的，被时间所引导而变得不自在，所以不是自在的。这就像许多水滴在各自的位置上完全干涸后，这些水就不会汇集成河流一样，造物主也是由许多身心聚集而成，而且也是刹那刹那无常的，具有坏灭的自性。
English
Because it is the same as emptiness, the statement that the constant creator alone creates all the worlds is completely refuted. Furthermore, some say that although the Lord is not impermanent, it is not contradictory to be a cause and effect, because it is a constant cause and effect. If that is the case, then the constant creator as the cause will generate the desired result. The sequential arising of desire is contradictory, and because of this contradiction, the sequential arising of these internal and external objects is also contradictory. There is no fault in this, even if the creator is constant, there is no connection between it and desire, and there is no connection between desire and these various things, if you think so. If it is separated from these two connections, then the Lord will no longer be the creator, because there is no connection with any of those activities. Therefore, the nature of the creator completely abandons the act of creating this complex world. Therefore, the non-Buddhists say that the constant, single, independent person of the creator is the supreme self, and the individual selves of the sentient beings created by him, the constant, single, independent ones, are the objects to be ruled by the supreme self. Furthermore, the Lord needs to rely on desire, so it is not independent, because the desire to generate the thought of "I should create this and this" arises from non-independence, and if it were independent, there would be no need for the desire to generate. Therefore, once there is desire, there will be the desire to abandon the suffering of one's own nature, and the desire to acquire happiness and well-being, so it is not independent. If it were independent, it would have to arise simultaneously with it, but that is not the case, because it relies on the effort of desire. Therefore, the creator Lord is momentarily impermanent, and becomes dependent on others by being led by time, so it is not independent. Just as when many drops of water are completely dried up in their respective places, these waters will not gather into a river, the creator is also a collection of many bodies and minds, and it is also momentarily impermanent, having the nature of destruction.