Chinese
非行者的自性非行者也不應當變成具有行，因為什麼緣故呢？因為非行者也是非行者之故，如同住者一樣，因為不具有它。說道：非行者的自性非行者，因為是非行者之故，譬如如同住者一樣，因為不具有行，所以不應當變成具有行。此處應當提問或說出推論，意思是說，主張行者建立有行，以及中觀派建立無行之時，在此情況下，主張行者應當向中觀派提問推論，你們中觀派如果遮止行，以什麼推論來遮止呢？應當這樣提問。如果這樣提問，我們中觀派也應當向你們展示以如所宣說的推論來遮止行的那些推論。或者你們主張行者為了建立行，應當說出自己的推論，我們主張行者建立有行，是以這些推論來建立的，應當這樣說。如果這樣說，我們中觀派也應當以如所宣說的推論來遮止行，以那些推論來駁斥你們的宗義，如果可以的話，你們主張行者既不向我們提問推論，自己也不說出推論，僅僅以言辭就不能成立自己的宗義，也不能駁斥他人的宗義，所以你們也有那樣的過失。為什麼僅僅以言辭就不能成立自己的宗義，也不能駁斥他人的宗義呢？因此說，一切說者都勇於說自己的宗義，因為言辭是沒有窮盡的。說道：如果沒有推論，你的自宗成立有行，那麼我為何不能從自己的自宗成立無行呢？如此，你說有行，而我說無行，所以一切說者都
English
It is not appropriate for a non-goer whose nature is non-going to become endowed with going. Why? Because a non-goer is indeed a non-goer, like a stayer, because he does not possess it. It is said: A non-goer whose nature is not going, because he is a non-goer, just as a stayer, because he does not possess that going, it is not appropriate to become endowed with going. Here, it is appropriate to ask or state an inference, which means that when those who assert going establish that there is going, and the Madhyamikas establish that there is no going, in this case, those who assert going should ask the Madhyamikas for an inference. If you Madhyamikas are going to refute going, with what inference do you refute it? It is appropriate to ask in this way. If asked in this way, we Madhyamikas should also show you those inferences by which we have refuted going, as has been explained. Or, you who assert going, in order to establish going, should state your own inference. We who assert going, in order to establish that there is going, establish it with these inferences. It is appropriate to say this. If you say this, we Madhyamikas should also refute your tenets with the inferences by which we have refuted going, as has been explained. If that is the case, you who assert going have neither asked us for an inference nor stated your own inference, so you cannot establish your own tenets or refute others' tenets with mere words, so you also have such a fault. Why can't you establish your own tenets or refute others' tenets with mere words? Therefore, all speakers are brave in stating their own tenets, because there is no end to words. It is said: If, without inference, your own established tenet becomes that there is going, then why can't I also establish that there is no going from my own established tenet? Thus, you say that there is going, and I say that there is no going, so all speakers
Chinese
因为自己对于宣说宗义很勇敢，所以言辞是无尽的。因此，你们这些宣说行者，既没有问我后比量，自己也没有说后比量，所以仅凭你们的言辞，不能成立自己的宗义，也不能驳倒他人的宗义，因此，你们宣说行存在的宗义也不能成立，而且，中观派成立的行不存在的理证之义也不能驳倒，因此那样。如果以理智分析，胜义中行走者、行者和所行也是不存在的，如是宣说。现在为了总结这个分别论，以及显示量之果。因此，如是如果以理智分析，行者如果是， 不行诸三行，彼非是亦然，不行诸三行，是与非是然，不行诸三行。所谓行者如果是，就是具有行走的行者，是说行存在的同义词。所谓行，就是所行。所谓三种，就是已行、未行和正行。所谓彼非是亦然，就是行者不具有行走。所谓是与非是然，就是行者既具有行走，又不具有行走等等。现在，行者如果是等等这三种，不行三种行，应当以比量成立。其中，暂且行者如果是，不行三种行，因为具有作用，如同其他，这是法，所立之法，能立之法，比喻，按照顺序结合。例如，行者如果是之外的提婆设多，行者如果是，因为具有行走的作用。所行三种已行、未行和正行中不行走，同样，行者如果是，因为具有行走的作用。所行三种
English
Because one is brave in speaking one's own tenets, therefore words are inexhaustible. Therefore, you who speak of goers, neither asked me for subsequent inference, nor did you speak of subsequent inference yourselves, so with just your words, you cannot establish your own tenets, nor can you refute the tenets of others, therefore, your tenets that proclaim the existence of goers cannot be established, and also, the meaning of the reasoning that establishes the non-existence of goers by the Madhyamikas cannot be refuted, therefore, in that way. If analyzed with reason, in ultimate truth, neither goers, nor the act of going, nor that which is to be gone to exist, thus it is taught. Now, in order to conclude this differentiation and to show the fruit of valid cognition. Therefore, in that way, if analyzed with reason: If there is a goer, They do not go in three goings. If that is not so, also, They do not go in three goings. If it is both so and not so, also, They do not go in three goings. What is called 'If there is a goer' is: a goer who possesses going, which is a synonym for 'there is going.' What is called 'going' is that which is to be gone to. What is called 'three' is gone, not gone, and being gone. What is called 'If that is not so, also' is: a goer who is without going. What is called 'If it is both so and not so, also' is: a goer who both possesses going and is without going, and so forth. Now, those three aspects, such as 'If there is a goer,' do not go in three kinds of going, which should be established by the valid cognition of inference. There, for the moment, 'If there is a goer' does not go in three kinds of going, because it possesses action, like something other than that, which is the subject, the property to be proven, the property that proves, and the example, to be connected in order. For example, Devadatta, other than 'If there is a goer,' 'If there is a goer' does not go in the three kinds of that which is to be gone to—gone, not gone, and being gone—because it possesses the action of going. Likewise, 'If there is a goer' also does not go in the three kinds of that which is to be gone to because it possesses the action of going.
Tibetan
པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དོ། །དེ་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་ཡང་འགྲོ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་དུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དེ་འགྲོ་བ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་སྡོད་པ་པོ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡང༌། ཆོས་ཅན་དང༌། བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ཆོས་དང༌། སྒྲུབ་པའི་ཆོས་དང༌། དཔེ་ཡིན་པར་གོ་རིམས་བཞིན་དུ་སྦྱར་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན་སྡོད་པ་པོ་ནི་འགྲོ་བ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ ཕྱིར་རོ། །བགྲོད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ། འགྲོ་བ་པོ་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་ཡང་འགྲོ་བ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ཕྱིར། བགྲོད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དོ། །ཡིན་པ་དང༌། མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་ཡང་འགྲོ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་དུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དེ། ཕྱོགས་གཉི་གར་བསྟན་པའི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་དག་གིས་གནོད་པར་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡང་ཆོས་ཅན་དང༌། བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ཆོས་དང༌། སྒྲུབ་པའི་ཆོས་དང༌། དཔེ་ཡིན་པར་གོ་རིམས་བཞིན་དུ་སྦྱར་ཏེ། འགྲོ་བ་པོ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པའི་ཕྱོགས་སུ་དཔེར་ན་འགྲོ་བ་པོ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་དེ་ལས་གཞན་པ་ལྷས་བྱིན་འགྲོ་བ་པོ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་ནི་འགྲོ་བའི་བྱ་བ་དང་ལྡན་པའི་ཕྱིར། བགྲོད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དོ་ཞེས་བསྟན་པ་དང༌། འགྲོ་བ་པོ་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པའི་ཕྱོགས་སུ། དཔེར་ན་སྡོད་པ་པོ་ནི་འགྲོ་བ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ཕྱིར། བགྲོད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དོ་ཞེས་བསྟན་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ། འགྲོ་བ་པོ་ཡིན་པ་དང་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་ཡང་འགྲོ་བའི་བྱ་བ་དང་ལྡན་པའི་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང༌། འགྲོ་བ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ཕྱིར། བགྲོད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ཏུ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དོ། །དེ་བཞིན་དུ་འགྲོ་བ་ཕྱོགས་སུ་བྱས་པ་དང༌། ཡང་གཏན་ཚིགས་དང་དཔེའི་སྦྱོར་བ་ཅི་རིགས་པར་བྱའོ་ཞེས་ཟེར་བ་ནི། འདི་ལྟར་སྦྱར་བར་བྱ་སྟེ། འགྲོ་བ་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་པོ་སོང་བ་དང༌། མ་སོང་བ་དང༌། བགོམ་པ་དག་ལས་རེ་ཞིག་སོང་བ་ནི་འགྲོ་བ་པོ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་དང༌། དེ་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་དང༌། ཡིན་པ་དང་མ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་གསུམ་འགྲོ་བར་མི་བྱེད་དེ། འགྲོ་བའི་བྱ་བ་འདས་ཟིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། དེ་ལས་གཞན་པའི་ལས་བཞིན་ནོ། །མ་སོང་བར་ཡང་འགྲོ་བ་ པོ་ཡིན་པ
Chinese
不会在已去、未去和正去这三种行进方式中行进。同样，已不是行者也不会以三种方式行进，因为他已脱离了行进，就像静止者一样。这可以按照次第，将有法、所立之法、能立之法和比喻对应起来。例如，静止者因为脱离了行进。正如那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去不会行进一样。同样，已不是行者也因为脱离了行进，那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去也不会行进。已是和已不是也不会以三种方式行进，因为对两方所作的后比量会造成损害。这也可以按照次第，将有法、所立之法、能立之法和比喻对应起来。在已是行者的一方，例如，与已是行者不同的天授已是行者，因为他具有行进的行为。不会在那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去中行进，这是已经指出的。在已不是行者的一方，例如，静止者因为脱离了行进，不会在那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去中行进，这是已经指出的。同样，已是行者和已不是行者，也因为具有行进的行为和脱离了行进，不会在那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去中行进。同样，将行进作为一方，也应当根据情况适当地运用理由和比喻。据说应当这样运用：那三种行进方式，已去、未去和正去，首先，已去不会是已是行者、已不是行者以及已是和已不是这三种，因为行进的行为已经过去，就像其他的行为一样。对于未去，也同样不会是行者。
English
It does not go in the three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone. Likewise, one who has become not a goer also does not go in three ways, because he is separated from going, like a stayer. This can be applied in order, corresponding to the subject, the dharma to be established, the establishing dharma, and the example. For example, the stayer is separated from going. Just as those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone, do not go. Likewise, one who has become not a goer, also because he is separated from going, those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone, do not go. What is and what has become not also do not go in three ways, because the subsequent inferences shown to both sides will cause harm. This can also be applied in order, corresponding to the subject, the dharma to be established, the establishing dharma, and the example. On the side of what has become a goer, for example, other than what has become a goer, Devadatta has become a goer, because he possesses the action of going. He does not go in those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone, this has been pointed out. On the side of what has become not a goer, for example, the stayer, because he is separated from going, does not go in those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone, this has been pointed out. Likewise, what has become a goer and what has become not a goer, also because they possess the action of going and are separated from going, do not go in those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone. Likewise, having made going one side, one should also appropriately apply the reason and example as appropriate. It is said that it should be applied in this way: those three ways of going, gone, not gone, and being gone, first, gone will not be the three, what has become a goer, what has become not a goer, and what is and is not, because the action of going has passed, like other actions. For not gone, likewise, it will not be a goer.