English
Alas! However, since it is seen that the nature of the fruit is not the nature of realization, and that many contradictions arise, the various dharmas are established by discrimination, and from contemplating the nature of realization, etc., with "it is the nature of realization," etc., with the distinctions of the dharmas such as the nature of realization that is in accordance with the cause, the imputation is made on different places by discrimination. Moreover, since they are non-existent, they are not different from them, since they are of many consciousnesses, and since there is no other than one consciousness, they are not different. If one thinks so, then in both combinations it is not established as a reason. If it is said that if it is so, then those differences are made by discrimination, so like a lotus in the sky, etc., it does not depend on the function of the cause, so from the nature of various causes, only various differences will arise, this statement is not reasonable. However, if it is manifestly held to be dependent, then, like the nature of realization made by discrimination, the function of the cause is established, so it is only a fabrication and does not become the real meaning. If it is so, then the fruit will become causeless, because the function of the cause can bring the habitual nature, etc., close together. However, if one is afraid of the faults that have been mentioned, and says that the fruit is only one that is not different, and the differences are different but not different from the fruit, then if it is so, then is it not that by having the dharma of different and non-different entities, the dharma and the dharmas are actually the same as the moon, stars, etc., because they are different entities, the general difference will surely fall on the head, and it is not only the fault of having mutually contradictory entities. However, if it is admitted that it is not different from the nature of realization, then the consciousness of the fruit will not arise from form, because it is not different from the nature of realization, like the nature of realization itself. Since it is not different from the aspect of the object, it will also arise from form, like the nature of the aspect of the object. Thus, from one fruit, arising and not arising, and also having a producer in one cause, at the same time, it becomes contradictory in that alone.
Chinese
如果认为见到如此这般的果实正在产生，那是不合理的。比如见到两个月亮等，也不能成为衡量标准，就像被衡量标准所损害一样，也不是所有见到的都成为衡量标准。如果认为唯一的一个因产生众多的果，那么就承认第三种观点。那是不合理的，如果一个产生众多的果，那么不同的因就不会产生不同的果，因此不同也不是不同的因。因此，多种多样和不一样的都会变成无因。如果唯一的因也产生众多的果，即使不一样，也是自身的那种差别，如果因自身的那种差别产生一个果，那么它本身是否也是其他的呢？如果它本身也是，那么果如何不同呢？如果是由其他的，那么因不一样是不合理的，因为自身差别中没有其他的物体。如果像数论派那样，成为果的自性的因产生果，那么一个变成多个的自性是相违背的，因此不产生多个是合理的。因为仅仅是确定产生不同和不不同的自性的因，产生没有不同的果时，就不会被这个争论所击败。如果从确定产生不同和不不同的自性的因中产生不同和不不同的果，那么这就是从不同的因和不不同的因中产生不同的果和不不同的果，如果这样认为，这也是错误的。因为应该这样进行分析，眼睛的自性产生眼睛的刹那，那么它本身也产生眼睛的意识吗？如果它本身也产生，那么意识也会变成仅仅是眼睛，因为是由产生眼睛的自性的因所产生，就像眼睛一样。或者，产生意识的自性本身也是眼睛吗？如果是那样，那么眼睛的
English
If one thinks that seeing such a result is being produced, that is not reasonable. For example, seeing two moons, etc., cannot become a standard of measurement. Just as being harmed by a standard of measurement, not everything seen becomes a standard of measurement. If one thinks that a single cause produces many effects, then one accepts the third view. That is not reasonable, if one produces many effects, then different causes will not produce different effects, therefore different is also not a different cause. Therefore, various differences and non-differences will become without cause. If the single cause also produces many effects, even if it is not different, it is that kind of difference in itself. If the cause itself produces one effect with that kind of difference, then is it also something else? If it is itself, then how are the effects different? If it is by something else, then it is not reasonable for the cause to be not different, because there is no other object in its own difference. If, like the Samkhya school, the cause that becomes the nature of the effect produces the effect, then it is contradictory for one to become the nature of many, therefore it is reasonable not to produce many. Because merely determining the cause of the nature that produces different and non-different, when producing effects that are not different, it will not be defeated by this argument. If different and non-different effects arise from the cause of nature that is determined to produce different and non-different, then this is the arising of different and non-different effects from different and non-different causes. If one thinks so, this is also wrong. Because one should analyze it in this way: does the nature of the eye, which produces the moment of the eye, also produce the consciousness of the eye itself? If it produces itself, then consciousness will also become merely the eye, because it is produced by the cause of the nature that produces the eye, just like the eye. Or, is the nature that produces consciousness itself also the eye? If so, then the eye's
Chinese
由于是生起识的因，所以眼也变成眼的识，如同眼的识一样。或者各自生起眼和非眼自性的因，变成眼和非眼。同样，由于生起识和非识的自性因，所以变成识和非识的体性。即使承认这是如此，你们也会因为现量等所损害而非常接近。如果认为眼的体性生起其他的眼的刹那，而其他的则是眼的识，那么，那些体性是从眼异体还是非异体？如果说是异体，那么，那时它们本身就是真实能起作用的相，因此真实是能生起的实物，而眼则变成非实物，因为什么也不做。如果说是非异体，那么，那时明明想成为一体的眼也变成异体，如同互相异体的体性和非异体的自性二者一样。即使那样，一体性也会丧失。或者自性也变成一体，因为与眼非异体，如同眼一样。对此，关于眼的体性在何处等过失已经说过了。如果认为从自己的因中生起一个所生的体性的因，同样能生起一个果，同样不能生起多个果也是从自己的因中生起的，那么，说这种话就是忘记了场合。像这样，如何阻止生起一个和多个，同样也想阻止生起一个，为什么要对中观派说这种话呢？对非中观派也没有意义，因为他们是想要生起一个和多个的。如果这样认为，从决定生起异体的自性中生起非异体，那么，这样一来，那么果就不再随顺因的体性了，因此
English
Since it is the cause of producing consciousness, the eye also becomes the consciousness of the eye, just like the consciousness of the eye. Or, respectively, the causes of the nature of eye and non-eye arise, becoming eye and non-eye. Similarly, because the nature of the cause that produces consciousness and non-consciousness arises, it becomes the nature of consciousness and non-consciousness. Even if you admit that this is so, you will be very close to being harmed by direct perception and so on. If it is thought that the nature of the eye produces other moments of the eye, and the others are the consciousness of the eye, then are those natures different from the eye or not different? If they are said to be different, then at that time they themselves are the characteristics of actually being able to function, so in reality they become the object that produces, and the eye becomes a non-object, because it does nothing. If it is said to be non-different, then at that time the eye, which clearly wants to be one, also becomes different, like the two natures of mutually different nature and non-different self. Even so, oneness will be lost. Or the natures also become one, because they are non-different from the eye, like the eye. In this regard, the faults regarding where the nature of the eye is, etc., have already been stated. If it is thought that the cause that produces a nature that produces one from its own cause, similarly produces one result, and similarly not producing many results also arises from its own cause, then saying such a thing is forgetting the occasion. Like this, how to prevent the arising of one and many, similarly also wanting to prevent the arising of one, why say such a thing to the Madhyamikas? It is also meaningless to non-Madhyamikas, because they want to produce one and many. If it is thought that non-difference arises from the nature that is determined to produce difference, then in that case, the result no longer follows the nature of the cause, therefore
Chinese
那么就成了无有。因为从必定产生各异的自性之眼，生出眼和眼的识，以及非眼之自性，那么无有各异如何产生？如此，原因是与各个果相互不一致的能力等相关联，所以不是产生各异的果。然而，如果是从自己的体性产生，那么，因为以前所说的矛盾存在，却忽略它而总是守护自己的宗派，多次放弃智者的责任，你们安乐而住的自己的体性，这个脓液般形形色色的东西是什么？如果是原因的法的力量，那不是，因为以前已经驳斥过了。也不能说就是完全显现的体性，因为，对于具有体验色等之识的显现，是依靠论典等而产生的遍计所执，遮止了仅仅是它产生等。哪种智慧有什么样的思想，它就遮蔽什么，这样的世间共称，就被认为是世俗谛。那么，这些正在领悟的形形色色的自性，全部都是真实的，否则就是虚假的。因此，因和果的事物如何显现，是难以改变的。如果是这样，有些人这样说：世俗谛是无事物，而生是事物，因此同时承认了可以和不可以作为所作的事物。然而，如果世俗谛是生，那么那时“在世俗谛中生”这句话，就是承认“生生”，因此什么不希望的也没有成立。 同样，“无生是胜义谛”这句话，以及“同样在胜义谛中不生”这句话的意思，也变成“因为无生所以无生”。如果那样，那么凡是驳斥“对于已成立的进行成立”等，都是因为不了解世俗谛的相，以与场合的意义无关的仅仅是显现的傲慢而说的。然而，如果一个原因产生一个果
English
Then it would become non-existent. Because from the eye of the nature that definitely produces differences, eye and eye consciousness, as well as the nature of non-eye, are born, then how can non-difference arise? Thus, the cause is related to the mutually inconsistent abilities of each effect, so it is not the cause of producing different effects. However, if it is produced from one's own nature, then, because the previously mentioned contradiction exists, but ignoring it and always guarding one's own sect, repeatedly abandoning the responsibility of the wise, what is this diverse thing like pus, your own nature in which you dwell in comfort? If it is the power of the dharma of the cause, that is not, because it has been refuted before. Nor should it be said that it is the nature of complete appearance, because, for the appearance of the consciousness that has the experience of form, etc., it is the imputation that arises depending on the treatises, etc., and it prevents only its arising, etc. Whatever thought a wisdom has, it obscures what, such a worldly convention is considered to be the conventional truth. Then, all these diverse natures that are being realized are all true, otherwise they are false. Therefore, how the things of cause and effect appear is difficult to change. If this is the case, some say that conventional truth is non-thing, and birth is thing, therefore, at the same time, things that can and cannot be done as actions are admitted. However, if conventional truth is birth, then at that time, the phrase "born in conventional truth" is admitting "birth is born", therefore nothing unwanted is established. Similarly, the meaning of the phrase "unborn is the ultimate truth", and the phrase "similarly unborn in the ultimate truth" also becomes "because unborn, therefore unborn". If that is the case, then whatever refutes "establishing what has already been established", etc., is because of not understanding the characteristics of conventional truth, and it is said with the arrogance of merely manifesting unrelated things that are not needed for the meaning of the occasion. However, if one cause produces one effect