Chinese
因为应当如此显示，所以对前一种观点也没有损害。像土等被证实并非具有燃烧的自性，它们本身就是例子，因此也不是没有例子。详细的分析就到此为止。又，如果不同就不接触，没有接触就不燃烧，不燃烧就不死亡，不死就保持自己的特征。如果火是不同的，就不会与木柴接触，因为是不同的，例如它本身不与木柴接触一样。如果没有接触，就不会燃烧，因为这里火和木柴也被认为是通过作者和行为的特征而联系和接触的。如果不燃烧，就不会死亡，因为没有木柴也能成立。如果不死，就会保持自己的特征，这意味着它会没有自己的原因而永久存在。那火是如何与木柴不同的，或者不是不同的呢？如果有人断言它与木柴不同，那么就会犯下如前所述的过失。因此，由于这里有可以利用的言辞，所以能够证明不接触等法的情况的意义，因此不应凭借它来表达推论，因为不同本身没有成立，也不应显示不接触。声音也不完全一样，就像不同本身和否定所显示的词的意义一样。对不同本身的否定也不是通过威胁来显示的，就像作者和行为的不同的否定一样是众所周知的。或者，在什么和什么之中一起，成为不同是不合理的。因为下面将会显示，所以这里不显示。中观根本慧论释·智慧之灯第九品。这里说道：如果你们不承认男人和女人是不同的，即使他们接触，那么火和木柴也没有接触，就像这样：如果不同就不接触，没有接触就不燃烧，不燃烧就不死亡，不死就保持自己的特征。等等这些过失也会发生。因为在整个世界上，男人和女人即使是不同的，但接触是众所周周知的，所以不能否认，因此，如何
English
Because it should be shown in this way, there is no harm to the previous view. Like earth and so on, which are proven not to have the nature of burning, they themselves are examples, so it is not without examples. Detailed analysis ends here. Also, if different, there is no contact; if there is no contact, there is no burning; if there is no burning, there is no death; if there is no death, it remains with its own characteristics. If the fire is different, it will not contact the firewood, because it is different, just as it itself does not contact the firewood. If there is no contact, there will be no burning, because here fire and firewood are also considered to be related and contacted through the characteristics of the agent and the action. If there is no burning, there will be no death, because it can also be established without firewood. If there is no death, it will remain with its own characteristics, which means it will exist permanently without its own cause. How is that fire different from the firewood, or is it not different? If someone asserts that it is different from the firewood, then they will commit the faults as mentioned before. Therefore, since there are exploitable words here, it is possible to prove the meaning of the circumstances of the dharmas such as non-contact, so inference should not be expressed by relying on it, because difference itself is not established, and non-contact should not be shown. The sound is also not exactly the same, just like the meaning of the words showing difference itself and negation. The negation of difference itself is not shown by threat, just as the negation of the difference between the agent and the action is well known. Or, in what and what together, it is unreasonable to be different. Because it will be shown below, it is not shown here. Commentary on the Root Verses of the Middle Way, Lamp of Wisdom, Ninth Chapter. Here it says: If you do not admit that men and women are different, even if they are in contact, then fire and firewood have no contact, like this: If different, there is no contact; if there is no contact, there is no burning; if there is no burning, there is no death; if there is no death, it remains with its own characteristics. And so on, these faults will also occur. Because in the whole world, men and women, even if they are different, contact is well known, so it cannot be denied, therefore, how
Chinese
如同女人和男人，男人也像女人相遇一样。如果从木头里生出其他的火，也能和木头相遇。可以这样说。即使没有说“一样”这个词，也应该根据“如何”这个词来推测，因为它是相似的。应该把前半部分拿出来进行解释，为了更容易表达想要说的意思。这里，词语的意义是为了说明在不一致的方面也存在成立的法，因此显示了不确定性。例如，如果有人说声音是常，因为是有形体的。有些人会说，就像有形体的事物是无常的一样，声音也是如此。要知道，这样说是为了显示不确定性。这里解释说：如果火和木头互相排斥，即使从木头里生出其他的火，也取决于是否想要和木头相遇。如果火和木头互相排斥，也就是说，如果不存在能动者和所作之间的联系，这就是它的同义词。即使从木头里生出其他的火，也取决于是否想要和木头相遇。也就是说，就像你所希望的那样，取决于是否想要像女人和男人一样相遇，这是通过留下余地的方式承认并想要回答。像这样，我认为如果互相不依赖的事物因为是其他事物而排除了在不同地方出现的特征的相遇，那么理由就会变得不确定，并且所承诺的意义也会变得合理。火和木头并不希望是那样的，因为如果它们之间没有能动者和所作之间的联系，就不会不出现，所以显示了对那些说其他事物的人的承诺留下余地，从而真正存在着排除法之差别的过失，而不是显示自主的推测。因此，女人和男人相遇后所说的话是不可能的，因为没有不一致的方面，所以不是不确定性，对方的话只是错误，只是显示了自己的智慧浅薄。因此，像那样火和木头互相
English
Just as a woman and a man, a man also meets a woman in the same way. If another fire arises from wood, it can also meet with wood. One can say that. Even if the word "same" is not spoken, it should be inferred from the word "how," because it is similar. The first half should be taken out and explained, in order to more easily express what one wants to say. Here, the meaning of the words is to show that even in the inconsistent aspect, there exists the dharma of establishment, thus showing uncertainty. For example, if someone says that sound is permanent because it has form. Some will say that just as things with form are impermanent, so is sound. Know that saying this is to show uncertainty. Here it is explained: If fire and wood repel each other, even if another fire arises from wood, it depends on whether one wants to meet with wood. If fire and wood repel each other, that is, if there is no connection between the agent and the action, that is its synonym. Even if another fire arises from wood, it depends on whether one wants to meet with wood. That is, just as you wish, it depends on whether one wants to meet like a woman and a man, which is to admit and want to answer by leaving room. Like this, I think that if things that do not depend on each other, because they are other things, exclude the meeting of the characteristic of appearing in different places, then the reason will become uncertain, and the meaning of the promise will become reasonable. Fire and wood do not want to be like that, because if there is no connection between the agent and the action between them, it will not fail to appear, so it shows that there is a fault of truly excluding the difference of dharma by leaving room for the promise of those who say other things, rather than showing autonomous inference. Therefore, what is said after a woman and a man meet is impossible, because there is no inconsistent aspect, so it is not uncertainty, the other person's words are just a mistake, just showing one's own shallow wisdom. Therefore, like that, fire and wood each other
Chinese
因为自性和他性都不能成立的缘故，所以是最初所说的能立的例子不圆满。这里说到，胜义中火和木柴是实有的，因为是互相观待的缘故。这里，凡是不存在的，就没有互相观待，比如兔子的角一样。火和木柴，比如这个火的木柴是这个，这个木柴的燃烧是这个，这样互相观待是存在的，因此火和木柴是实有的，因为它们存在，所以实事成立。这里说到，如果木柴观待火，如果火观待木柴，观待什么而有的火和木柴，最初成立的是什么？是木柴观待什么而成立火呢？还是火观待什么而成立木柴呢？火和木柴中最初成立的是什么呢？对于它们，观待什么而任何一个成立的最初成立者是没有的，这样想的。这样胜义中观待不合理的缘故，宗义不能成立，例子的过失也是一样的。如果认为是世俗的宗义，那么就是义相违，能立的例子不圆满的过失也是一样的。如果又想木柴是最初成立的，所以没有过失，因此说到，如果木柴不观待，火成立就成为能立了。对于不成立者，说特别的言辞，因为是观待木柴的缘故，这样想的。这样思择，对于要烧的木柴，没有火也是可以的。因为那个木柴以前不观待火也是成立木柴的缘故，这样想的。那是不允许的，因为这是有漏洞的言辞的缘故，比量是明显的，胜义中木柴不是在火之前成立的，因为是具有观待的缘故，比如火的自性一样，广说如前。这里说到，它们中任何一个都不是最初成立的，然而火和木柴是同时成立的，因为是具有观待的缘故，比如牛的角同时
English
Because neither self-nature nor other-nature can be established, it is the case that the example of proof stated initially is not complete. Here it is said that, in the ultimate sense, fire and firewood are truly existent, because they are mutually dependent. Here, those that do not exist do not have mutual dependence, like a rabbit's horns. Fire and firewood, such as 'this fire's firewood is this,' 'this firewood's burning is this,' thus mutual dependence exists, therefore fire and firewood are truly existent, because they exist, therefore the meaning of reality is established. Here it is said, 'If wood depends on fire, if fire depends on wood, what is the first established of fire and wood that depends on what?' Does fire arise depending on what firewood, or does firewood arise depending on what fire? What is the first established of fire and firewood? For them, there is no first established that arises depending on what, so it is thought. Thus, since dependence is not reasonable in the ultimate sense, the meaning of the thesis is not established, and the fault of the example is the same. If it is thought to be a conventional thesis, then it is contradictory in meaning, and the fault of the incomplete example of proof is the same. If one thinks that firewood is established first, so there is no fault, therefore it is said, 'If wood does not depend, the establishment of fire becomes a proof.' For the unestablished, saying special words, because it depends on firewood, so it is thought. Thus, considering this, even for the firewood to be burned, it can exist without fire. Because that firewood is established as firewood even before depending on fire, so it is thought. That is not allowed, because this is a word with loopholes, so inference is obvious, in the ultimate sense firewood is not established before fire, because it is with dependence, like the nature of fire itself, extensively as before. Here it is said, 'None of them are established first, but fire and firewood arise simultaneously, because they are with dependence, like the horns of a cow simultaneously.'