Chinese
又为遮止他宗而宣说：如果因和缘的聚合没有果，那么因和缘也和没有因一样了，因为果是空性的缘故。如果有人问因和缘有什么差别？要知道，因的特征是不共的，唯一的，能成办自事的，紧接着的，产生同等性质的等等。缘的特征与此相反，是共同的，多样的，为了滋养他者的相续而成办他事的，遥远的，产生不同等性质的等等。 "因缘非因同"，这表明因和缘的法不是产生果，而是果的空性。因此，对于那些主张果先前不存在的人来说，这种为了适应场合而排除推论的方式是显而易见的。要知道，在胜义谛中，种子等因和缘不是产生果，因为它们是果的空性，就像非因和非缘一样。如果说果是由因和缘产生的，因为果是从确定的因和缘中产生的，那么这也是不可能的，因为没有随同，并且辩论和考察同样存在。如果说，因为看到从青稞的种子中产生青稞的幼苗，所以看到的事实没有理由的意义，那么在世俗的范畴内，用意识看到幼苗的产生，以及看到确定的因和缘以及果的产生，这是真实的。但在胜义谛中，这是没有看到的，因为在胜义谛中，它的产生没有成立。因此，如果这样全面考察，果的成立是不合理的，因此"因为是果成立的因"这样的理由的意义没有成立，也没有随同。此外，对于那些主张果先前不存在的人来说，因是在给予果之后消失呢？还是在没有给予果的情况下消失呢？这会怎么样呢？如果
English
It is also explained to refute other views: If there is no result in the collection of causes and conditions, then the causes and conditions are also the same as having no cause, because the result is emptiness. If someone asks what is the difference between cause and condition? Know that the characteristics of a cause are uncommon, unique, accomplishing its own purpose, immediately following, producing equal qualities, and so on. The characteristics of conditions are the opposite of this, being common, diverse, accomplishing the purpose of others in order to nourish the continuum of others, being distant, producing unequal qualities, and so on. "Causes and conditions are the same as non-causes," which shows that the dharma of causes and conditions is not the production of results, but rather the emptiness of results. Therefore, for those who assert that the result did not previously exist, this way of eliminating inference to suit the occasion is obvious. Know that in the ultimate truth, causes and conditions such as seeds are not the producers of results, because they are the emptiness of results, just like non-causes and non-conditions. If it is said that the result is produced by causes and conditions, because the result arises from definite causes and conditions, then this is also not possible, because there is no concomitance, and debate and examination are equally present. If it is said that because one sees the sprout of barley arising from the seed of barley, the fact of seeing has no meaning of reason, then within the scope of convention, it is true that the arising of the sprout is seen by consciousness, and that the arising of definite causes and conditions and the result is seen. But in the ultimate truth, this is not seen, because in the ultimate truth, its arising is not established. Therefore, if one examines in this way, the establishment of the result is unreasonable, and therefore the meaning of the reason "because it is the cause of the establishment of the result" is not established, and there is also no concomitance. Furthermore, for those who assert that the result did not previously exist, does the cause disappear after giving the result to the result, or does it disappear without giving the result? What will happen? If
Chinese
如果因是果，因施舍后就会灭亡，那么所施舍的和所灭亡的，就会变成因的两种体性。如果因将因的能量给予果后灭亡，那么所施舍的和所灭亡的因的体性就会变成两种，因为施舍的和灭亡的因的体性是不同的缘故。 这在名言中也是不认可的。像这样，缘起之因，如谷物等，通过帮助而施加利益，就能产生果，如果因为这个原因而产生果，那么对于没有果的假立的差别之基，是不允许剥夺能量的。因此，诸行没有转移，从相似性来看，是那样错乱的。然而，如果没有给予就灭亡，如果是那样，如果因对果，因没有给予就灭亡，因灭亡时所生的果，那个果就会变成无因。因为不希望果从无因中产生，所以因灭亡也不会产生果，因为灭亡的缘故，就像灭亡后过了很久一样。因为对这个没有矛盾的成立，所以不需要向他人展示这个意义。如果集合本身和合产生果，例如灯和光一样，因此说，如果和合，果也生起，那么产生者和所产生者，就会变成同时。产生者和所产生者，如父和子等，同时出现是不希望的。那么希望怎样呢？希望是时间不同。产生者和所产生者本身具有因和果，因此能够推断，果的集合本身不会同时产生，因为是产生者和所产生者的缘故，例如子和父一样。由于先前集合的力量，灯和光一起被安立，因此灯和光不是因和果的实有，因为先前已经详细阐述了破斥。那是不好的。为了那些说果先前产生，集合本身使之显现的人，说了这些。
English
If the cause is the fruit, and the cause ceases after giving, then what is given and what ceases will become two natures of the cause. If the cause gives the power of the cause to the fruit and then ceases, then the nature of the cause that is given and the nature of the cause that ceases will become two, because the nature of the cause that is given and the nature of the cause that ceases are different. This is not accepted even in name. Like this, the cause of dependent origination, such as grains, etc., can produce fruit if it benefits by helping. If the fruit arises because of this reason, then it is not permissible to deprive the power of the basis of the distinction that is established without the fruit. Therefore, there is no transfer in the formations. From similarity, it is so confused. However, if it ceases without giving, if that is the case, if the cause is to the fruit, and the cause ceases without giving, when the cause ceases, the fruit that is born, that fruit will become without cause. Because it is not desired that the fruit arises from no cause, therefore the cessation of the cause will not produce the fruit, because it has ceased, just like it has been a long time since it ceased. Because there is no contradiction in this establishment, there is no need to show this meaning to others. If the collection itself produces the fruit simultaneously, like a lamp and light, then it is said, if the fruit also arises together with the collection, then the producer and the produced will become simultaneous. The producer and the produced, such as father and son, etc., are not desired to occur at the same time. Then how is it desired? It is desired that the times are different. The producer and the produced themselves have cause and effect, therefore it is possible to infer that the collection of fruit itself does not arise simultaneously, because it is the producer and the produced, like son and father. Because of the power of the previous collection, the lamp and light are established together, therefore the lamp and light are not the reality of cause and effect, because the refutation has been explained in detail before. That is not good. For those who say that the fruit arises earlier, and the collection itself makes it manifest, these are said.