Chinese
属于非有之范畴，因此我们的论证没有不定之过失。如此，精勤、汗水和黑暗等，因为是经过考察并且完全通达的缘故，一切也是一切的自性，因为没有不同的传承。如是说之答复，以下解释部分即是显示破斥前派之论。其中，首先，先前数论者认为，因只是在果产生之时不坏灭，因为由此而生，如果之自性一般。为了驳斥其所说，在此如果将已灭之因作为宗，则有不成立等过失。在此，因为果已生才安立因之名称，而果已生之时，因已灭，因此，如果将已灭之因，即果产生之时不坏灭作为宗，则有论式之基础不成立之过失。因为已灭之因是坏灭而无有的，因此你们要成立其不坏灭的论证，即因为必定产生之故，其所说之不成立之过失是存在的，因此是不可以的。如果将现在的因作为宗，则没有比喻，因为它的果没有成立之故。所谓如果果未生之时，因未灭，现在存在的那个，在果产生之时是不坏灭的，如果这样作为宗，则有比喻不成立之过失。因为现在的因存在之时，它的果没有成立之故，你们要成立其不坏灭的比喻，如果之自性一般，其所说之不成立之过失是存在的，因此是不可以的。凡不是其他果的，也不是它的因，因为不是其他的缘故，如自己的自性一般，以不是其他而作随行推论的立宗，以因不是因本身而遮遣了它的因性，因此有遮遣有法之体性的过失。这是因为先前的数论者们，或者说，因牛奶的刹那与果酸奶的刹那不是他体，因为是从牛奶产生，例如酸奶
English
It belongs to the category of non-existent, therefore our argument has no fault of being uncertain. Thus, diligence, sweat, and darkness, etc., because they are examined and completely understood, everything is also the nature of everything, because there is no different lineage. In response to this statement, the following explanation shows the refutation of the previous school's theory. Among them, first, the previous Samkhyas considered that the cause is only not destroyed when the effect is produced, because it is born from it, like the nature of the effect. In order to refute what they said, here, if the past cause is taken as the subject, then there are faults such as non-establishment. Here, because the effect is produced, the name of the cause is established, and when the effect is produced, the cause is extinguished, therefore, if the extinguished cause, that is, not destroyed when the effect is produced, is taken as the subject, then there is a fault that the basis of the argument is not established. Because the extinguished cause is destroyed and non-existent, therefore you want to establish the argument that it is not destroyed, that is, because it must be produced, the fault of its non-establishment exists, therefore it is not permissible. If the present cause is taken as the subject, then there is no analogy, because its effect is not established. The so-called if the effect is not produced, the cause is not extinguished, that which exists now, is not destroyed when the effect is produced, if this is taken as the subject, then there is a fault that the analogy is not established. Because when the present cause exists, its effect is not established, the analogy you want to establish that it is not destroyed, like the nature of the effect, the fault of its non-establishment exists, therefore it is not permissible. Whatever is not another effect is also not its cause, because it is not other, like one's own nature, with not being other as the subsequent inference's proposition, by the cause not being the cause itself, its causality is rejected, therefore there is a fault of rejecting the nature of the subject. This is because the previous Samkhyas, or rather, the moment of the cause milk and the moment of the effect yogurt are not other, because they are produced from milk, for example, yogurt
Chinese
如同自己的自性一样。如果说，过去的眼识刹那不是现在的眼识刹那，因为是眼识的缘故，如同现在的眼识刹那一样，那么这就被驳斥了。因为你们认为因不是果，所以种子也是苗芽的因，如同不是他者的苗芽的自性一样。因此，你们立誓以因来推断果不是他者，但因和果已经不是他者了。因为凡是因，就一定是果的因，因此排除了它的因性，所以以不是他者来成立的法，因和果的自性就被排除了，所以是不行的。所谓“不坏”的意义是什么呢？这是问你们数论师所说的“因在果产生的时候是不坏的”的意义是什么的问句。如果说是自性处于潜伏状态，那就是没有例子的，如果数论师说，果产生的时候，因不坏，那是因为那个时候，因的自性处于心力、尘埃和黑暗等功德平衡的潜伏状态，而不是消失了，所以是不坏的。那么现在，因在果产生的时候，自性处于潜伏状态，而不是坏灭，如同某某一样，这是没有例子的，所以是不行的。如果说是不明显的，也有同样的过失，如果数论师说，果产生的时候，因不坏，那是因为不明显，那么也有没有例子的过失，因为不明显就是处于潜伏状态，明显就是没有处于潜伏状态，如同某某一样，这是没有例子的，所以也是不行的。认为坏灭和先前没有的都是存在的，那么就会出现没有例子和违背承诺的过失，这是因为先前数论师认为先前没有的果和坏灭后没有的果都是存在的。
English
Like one's own self-nature. If it is said that the past moment of eye consciousness is not the same as the present moment of eye consciousness, because it is eye consciousness, just like the present moment of eye consciousness, then this is refuted. Because you believe that the cause is not the effect, so the seed is also the cause of the sprout, just like the self-nature of the sprout that is not other. Therefore, you vow to infer that the effect is not other from the cause, but the cause and effect have become not other. Because whatever is the cause must be the cause of the effect, therefore it eliminates its causality, so the dharma established as not other, the self-nature of cause and effect is eliminated, so it is not acceptable. What is the meaning of "undecayed"? This is a question asking what is the meaning of what you Samkhyas say, "The cause is only undecayed at the time of the effect's arising." If it is said that the nature is in a latent state, then there is no example. If the Samkhyas say that the cause is not decayed at the time of the effect's arising, it is because at that time, the nature of the cause is in a latent state with the qualities of strength, dust, and darkness in equilibrium, and it is not that it has disappeared, so it is undecayed. Then now, the cause is in a latent state by nature at the time of the effect's arising, and it is not destroyed, like so-and-so, there is no example, so it is not acceptable. If it is said to be unclear, there is also the same fault. If the Samkhyas say that the cause is not decayed at the time of the effect's arising because it is unclear, then there is also the fault of having no example, because unclear is being in a latent state, and clear is not being in a latent state, like so-and-so, there is no example, so it is also not acceptable. Thinking that destruction and what did not exist before are both existent, then there will be the faults of having no example and contradicting the promise, because previously the Samkhyas thought that the effect that did not exist before and the effect that does not exist after destruction are both existent.