Chinese
如果问为什么呢？因为存在着非色之自性，是与色相区别的，显现为实物的心的行境之色的自性。其中，所谓“非色”，是指与色不同的，即声、香、味、触等。所谓“非色之自性”，是指那些非色的自性，即耳朵等所取的境和未取的境等。所谓“相区别的”，是指与那些非色之自性相区别的，即体性各异。所谓“它的实物”，是指眼的境，即颜色和形状的自性。所谓“显现”，是指它的显现方式。所谓“心的”，是指显现于其中的心。所谓“行境”，是指色，所谓“行”，是指那个根，所谓“境”，是指色，因为对那个色进行作用和进入，所以是行境。如此之色的自性，在现量的心中显现，那是不可言说的，在世俗中是存在的。因为它的存在，所以仅仅是如实地表达，在一切方面色是空性的，这样才是合理的。如果说实物的总相是表达的对境，而且那个表达本身就是空性的，那么，这里所说的：如果所表达的是总相，总相什么也不是，因此以表达的自性，空性是不合理的。对于这样，你们认为所要表达的是总相，总相比如不是牛，而是用马等其他来排除牛，这就是牛的总相。如果这样认为，那么排除其他的总相什么也不是，因此它不是实物。如果不是实物，那么要表达什么呢？如果没有要表达的，那么因为没有要表达的，因此以表达的自性是空性，这就不合理了。那么，什么样的总相才是可以表达的呢？因此说：所说的是具有总相的实物，因为它是显现于其中的心的因，因此它是具有它的自性的，所以不可能是不可言说的。这样说道，所要表达的总
English
If asked why, it is because there exists the nature of form that is non-form, distinguished from form, appearing as an object of the mind, which is the nature of form. Among these, "non-form" means other than form, namely sound, smell, taste, and touch. "The nature of non-form" refers to the nature of those non-forms, such as objects taken by the ear and those not taken, and so on. "Distinguished" means distinguished from those natures of non-form, that is, having different characteristics. "Its object" refers to the object of the eye, which is the nature of color and shape. "Appearance" refers to its manner of appearance. "Of the mind" refers to the mind in which it appears. "Object of experience" refers to form. "Experience" refers to that sense faculty. "Object" refers to form, because it acts upon and enters into that form, therefore it is the object of experience. Such a nature of form, appearing in the direct perception of the mind, is inexpressible, and exists conventionally. Because of its existence, it is merely expressed as it is, and it is reasonable to say that form is empty in all respects. If it is said that the general characteristic of an object is the object of expression, and that expression itself is empty, then, as stated here: If what is expressed is a generality, a generality is nothing at all, therefore, it is not reasonable for emptiness to be by the nature of expression. Regarding this, you consider that what is to be expressed is a generality, and a generality is, for example, not a cow, but the exclusion of a cow by other things such as horses, which is the generality of a cow. If you think this way, then the generality of excluding others is nothing at all, therefore it is not an entity. If it is not an entity, then what is to be expressed? If there is nothing to be expressed, then because there is nothing to be expressed, it is not reasonable for emptiness to be by the nature of expression. Then, what kind of generality is it reasonable to be expressible? Therefore, it is said: What is spoken of is an entity possessing generality, because it is the cause of the mind in which it appears, therefore it possesses its nature, so it cannot be inexpressible. Thus it is said, the general
Chinese
具有共性的事物，对于任何事物，不依赖于蓝色等差别，而具有形体本身的共性，那就是具有共性的事物，比如蓝色等，以及长短等。为什么这样说呢？因为它是显现于其中的心识的因。因为它存在于具有共性的形体本身的自性中，所以是能够被明显表达的对象，怎么能说是不可表达的呢？说不可表达是不合理的。如果所谓的“共性”不是排除其他，那么所谓的“共性”是什么呢？因此说： “因其空无异类， 是为同类生识因， 同类之中具同性， 故定名为之共性。” 这是说，所谓的共性，比如像马等空无异类，那就是牛的共性。为什么呢？因为它是对牛产生共同认识的原因。而且，因为它是事物的自性，所以，同类的，具有鬃毛、尾巴、肉垂、蹄子和角，无论是聚集还是分离，或者被分割成蓝色、黄色等不同颜色，即使是不同的个体，也因为具有共同的共性特征，所以中观宗认为这就是所谓的共性。如果将非牛的马等的自性空无，安立为鬃毛等聚集的法，那么，即使不取鬃毛等，也会有执着为牛的情况，这将会导致如同不取形体等也会有执着的情况。对于中观派来说，如果认为马等异类空性的牛的自性是共性，那么就会出现： “若不取基则无取， 取彼则有可取故， 如其数量依彼者， 当知彼物可分析，非异。” 也就是说，所谓的“空无异类”的意思是，马等异类空性的牛的自性，本身就具有鬃毛等。如果不取鬃毛等聚集的基，则无法取；那么，怎么样才能取呢？只有取了基才能取，这就是结论。
English
A thing that possesses generality: Whatever has the generality of form itself, regardless of distinctions such as blue, is a thing that possesses generality, such as blue and long. Why is that? Because it is the cause of the consciousness that appears in it. Because it exists in the very nature of that form with generality, it is an object that can be manifestly expressed. How could it be reasonable to say that it is inexpressible? It is not reasonable to say that it is inexpressible. If what is called "generality" is not the elimination of others, then what is called "generality"? Therefore, it is said: "Because it is empty of dissimilar kinds, It is the cause for the arising of concordant minds. Because there is similarity among similar kinds, It is definitely regarded as generality." This means that what is called generality, for example, the emptiness of dissimilar kinds such as horses, is like the generality of a cow. Why is that? Because it is the cause for the concordant arising of the mind towards a cow. Moreover, because it is the very nature of a thing, similar kinds, possessing mane, tail, dewlap, hooves, and horns, whether gathered or separated, or divided into different colors such as blue and yellow, even though they are different individuals, because they have similar common characteristics, therefore, the Madhyamikas definitely hold that this is what is called generality. If the emptiness of the nature of non-cows such as horses is established as a dharma gathered from mane etc., then even without grasping the mane etc., there will be a grasping of it as a cow, which would lead to the consequence that there would be a grasping even without grasping form etc. For the Madhyamikas, if they consider the nature of a cow, which is the emptiness of dissimilar kinds such as horses, to be a generality, then it would follow: "If the basis is not taken, there is no taking, Because taking that, there is something to be taken. As the number depends on that, That thing should be analyzed, it is not different." That is to say, the meaning of "emptiness of dissimilar kinds" is that the nature of a cow, which is the emptiness of dissimilar kinds such as horses, itself possesses mane etc. If the basis gathered from mane etc. is not taken, it cannot be taken; then, how can it be taken? Only by taking the basis can it be taken, that is the conclusion.