Chinese
如果对方想要说的虚空的体性无有遮蔽，不是体性的所依，同样，虚空也因为比虚空的体性无有遮蔽更早存在，所以不是对方想要说的虚空的体性无有遮蔽的体性的所依。又或者，会成为无体性。名为无体性是指，对于体性来说，没有就是无体性，对于它来说，没有体性的所依，是这个意思。又或者，会成为无体性。名为偈颂的根本的那个无体性是指，对于体性来说，没有体性的所依就是无体性。如果体性比体性的所依更早存在，那么那个体性就会成为没有体性的所依。如果名比体性更早存在。名为虚空的情况是，这显示了它的法，体性不同于体性的所依。如果名比体性更早存在。名为这句偈颂的意思是，如果虚空比体性更早存在，是这种情况，这显示了对于体性来说，没有体性的所依就会成为无体性，那个成立的法，因是体性不同。这里随后的比量是，想要说的体性不能表示体性的所依虚空，因为是其他的缘故，例如不同于它一样。这些是法，以及要成立的法，以及成立的法，以及例子，按照顺序来连接。例如，不同于虚空体性无有遮蔽的体性，坚硬、潮湿、热、运动、以及能辨别，那些因为不同于虚空的体性无有遮蔽，所以那些不能表示虚空，同样，对方想要说的虚空的体性无有遮蔽也因为不同于虚空，所以它也不能表示虚空。其中，偈颂的后半部分的解释，最开始的解释是否定了体性的所依，而最后的解释是否定了体性，那两者
English
If the opponent intends to say that the nature of space is unobstructed, it is not the basis of nature, similarly, space is also not the basis of the nature of the unobstructed nature of space because it exists earlier than that. Or else, it will become devoid of nature. The term "devoid of nature" means that for nature, non-existence is devoid of nature, and for it, there is no basis of nature, that is the meaning. Or else, it will become devoid of nature. The root of the verse called "devoid of nature" means that for nature, the absence of the basis of nature is called devoid of nature. If nature exists earlier than the basis of nature, then that nature will become devoid of the basis of nature. If the name exists earlier than the nature. The case of the name "space" is that it shows its dharma, the nature is different from the basis of nature. If the name exists earlier than the nature. The meaning of this verse is that if space exists earlier than nature, this is the case, it shows that for nature, the absence of the basis of nature will become devoid of nature, that established dharma, the reason is that the nature is different. Here, the subsequent inference is that the nature that one wants to say cannot represent the basis of nature, space, because it is other, like being different from it. These are dharma, and the dharma to be established, and the established dharma, and the example, connected in order. For example, the nature different from the unobstructed nature of space, hardness, moisture, heat, movement, and the ability to distinguish, those cannot represent space because they are different from the unobstructed nature of space, similarly, the unobstructed nature of space that the opponent wants to say is also different from space, so it also cannot represent space. Among them, the explanation of the latter half of the verse, the first explanation negates the basis of nature, and the last explanation negates the nature, those two
Chinese
區別就在於此。損害對方內部的隨後推斷，因為不希望特徵的基礎和特徵本身沒有特徵，所以也應當捨棄將其視為他者的分別念。這就是說，如果對方，即勝論派等，聲稱特徵的基礎和特徵是他者，這是不允許損害自己的隨後推斷的。為什麼呢？因為勝論派本身也不希望特徵的基礎沒有特徵，也不希望特徵沒有特徵的基礎。如果通過隨後推斷，特徵的基礎和特徵被斷定為他者，那麼特徵的基礎也會變成沒有特徵，而特徵也會變成沒有特徵的基礎，因此，為了不損害自己的隨後推斷，也不允許將其視為他者的分別念，應當捨棄。這是總結性的話語。如果因為沒有用棍棒遣返，而說世俗諦的理由，即使理由的意義沒有成立，但由於難以遣返與意義相違背的事實，因此，特徵是異體和非異體沒有成立的緣故，虛空變成了沒有特徵的，如果這樣說，這就是說，中觀派用理性的鐵鉤像牽引大象一樣牽引對方，即勝論派等，即使已經能夠遣返，但由於沒有用棍棒的理性遣返，如果又厚顏無恥地隨口說出這樣的話：我們用任何世俗諦的理由來證明特徵的基礎和特徵是他者或非他者，即使在世俗諦中我們的理由的意義沒有成立，但我們在勝義諦中證明特徵的基礎和特徵存在，這與意義相違背的事實難以遣返，因此，我們無法證明特徵的基礎和特徵是異體和非異體，因為沒有成立的緣故，虛空就變成了沒有特徵的，這樣主張，這就是說這句話。為了回答這樣的主張，在這裡進行解釋，也不能因此就理解它是沒有特徵的事物，像這樣，特徵
English
The distinction lies in that. It harms the subsequent inference within the opponent, because it is not desired that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics themselves are without characteristics, so the conceptualization of them as other should also be abandoned. That is to say, if the opponent, such as the Vaiśeṣikas, asserts that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are other, it is not permissible to harm one's own subsequent inference. Why? Because the Vaiśeṣikas themselves do not want the basis of characteristics to be without characteristics, nor do they want the characteristics to be without a basis of characteristics. If, through subsequent inference, the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are determined to be other, then the basis of characteristics will also become without characteristics, and the characteristics will also become without a basis of characteristics. Therefore, in order not to harm one's own subsequent inference, it is not permissible to conceptualize them as other, and it should be abandoned. This is a concluding statement. If, because it has not been refuted with a stick, a conventional reason is stated, even if the meaning of the reason is not established, it is difficult to refute the fact that it contradicts the meaning. Therefore, because the characteristics being other and not other is not established, the sky has become without characteristics. If that is said, this means that the Madhyamikas, like leading an elephant with a hook of reason, lead the opponent, such as the Vaiśeṣikas, and even if they have been able to refute them, if they shamelessly and spontaneously say this: "We use any conventional reason to prove that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are other or not other, even if the meaning of our reason is not established in the conventional truth, but we prove that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics exist in the ultimate truth, and it is difficult to refute the fact that this contradicts the meaning. Therefore, we cannot prove that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are other and not other, because it is not established, and the sky has become without characteristics," thus asserting, this is the meaning of that statement. In order to answer such an assertion, the explanation is given here, but it is not possible to understand it as something without characteristics, like this, characteristics
Chinese
说道：“存在的实物，无论何处都不存在。”意思是说，胜义谛的实物，无论在对方还是我方，都是无法成立的。解释“无相之物，无论何处都不存在”这句话的含义是：如果对方说，虚空会变成无相之物，那么这种胜义谛的实物，无论在对方还是我方，都是无法成立的。如果有人说，作为相之基础的虚空是真实存在的，因为相会依附于它。这是胜论派等通过相依附于相之基础的方式来论证相之基础存在的推理。他们的推理可以按照法、所立法、能立法和例子的顺序来排列。 为了回答他们的说法，这里通过解释来确定这种说法是不合理的。说道：“如果无相之物不存在，相又将依附于何处？”意思是说，根据之前“无相之物，无论何处都不存在”的论述，如果无相之物根本不存在，那么相又将依附于何处呢？因为没有基础，所以相依附的说法是不合理的。因为没有基础，所以像基础一样，理由无法成立。这是对“如果无相之物不存在，相又将依附于何处？”的解释。如果没有无相的相之基础的实物，那么因为没有相之基础，所以像基础一样，相依附于它的理由是无法成立的。为了补充这一点，因为在没有对象的情况下，理由的运用是无法成立的，所以会犯理由本身未成立的过失。或者，如果从非异体的角度来看，如果相之基础和相本身是非异体的，那么这两者就不能互相代表，因为没有与此不同的相，所以虚空没有相。这是分别论者的说法。
English
It is said, "Existing entities do not exist anywhere." This means that ultimately, entities cannot be established on either the opponent's side or our own. The explanation of the statement, "Objects without characteristics do not exist anywhere," is as follows: If the opponents say that space becomes something without characteristics, then such an ultimately existing entity cannot be established on either the opponent's side or our own. If someone says that space, as the basis of characteristics, is indeed existent because characteristics adhere to it, this is an inference made by the Vaibhashikas and others who argue for the existence of the basis of characteristics through the adherence of characteristics to that basis. Their inference can be arranged in the order of subject, property to be proven, proving property, and example. In response to their statement, it is determined here through explanation that this is not reasonable. It is said, "If there are no objects without characteristics, where will the characteristics adhere?" This means that according to the previous statement, "Objects without characteristics do not exist anywhere," if there are no objects without characteristics at all, then where will the characteristics adhere? Because there is no basis, the statement that characteristics adhere is unreasonable. Because there is no basis, the reason cannot be established like a basis. This is an explanation of "If there are no objects without characteristics, where will the characteristics adhere?" If there is no entity that is the basis of characteristics without characteristics, then because there is no basis of characteristics, the reason that characteristics adhere to it like a basis cannot be established. To add to this, because the application of reason is not established in the absence of an object, it becomes a fault of the reason itself not being established. Alternatively, if from the perspective of non-difference, if the basis of characteristics and the characteristics themselves are non-different, then these two cannot represent each other, because there are no characteristics different from this, so space has no characteristics. This is a statement of the Particularists.
Chinese
那些说天空仅仅显示为不遮蔽，性质的基础和性质不是其他的那些人的立场也是如此。如果无性质的事物不存在，性质又如何在何处适用？这表明了这句话的意义将会出现。对于其他的立场，想要说的性质不是性质的基础的性质，因为是其他的缘故，就像不同于它一样。那些说性质的基础和性质相同的人的立场也是如此，性质的基础和性质因为是其他的缘故，性质不适用，所以没有性质。即使没有性质，性质的基础的事物也不存在，因此对于它也是如此。如果无性质的事物不存在，性质又如何在何处适用？这表明了这句话的意义将会出现。那些的推论也按照顺序与有法、所立之法、能立之法和例子相结合。例如，天空的性质不遮蔽，因为不同于它，所以其他的性质，如坚硬等，因为不同于天空，所以那些不同于天空的性质不是天空的性质，同样，对方想要说的天空的性质不遮蔽也因为不同于天空，所以不是天空的性质。因为增加了那个，所以没有性质，因此那个也使得天空没有性质。如果无性质的事物，名为天空的不存在，性质又如何在何处适用？因为那个适用是不成立的。说了这句话的意思。那些也像之前对方所说的那样，性质的基础天空是仅仅存在的，因为它适用性质，这表明了理由的意义是不成立的。另外，适用于性质的基础的理由的意义是，如果这个性质，性质的基础的法存在等等不存在，就不会出现，因此会知道性质的基础，如果这样说，就像之前对方所说的那样，性质的基础天空是仅仅存在的，因为它适用性质，如果问这个理由的意义是什么，那么对于这个
English
Those who say that the sky only appears as unobstructing, the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are not other, their position is also like this. If a non-characteristic thing does not exist, where will the characteristic apply? This shows that the meaning of this sentence will appear. For the other position, the characteristic that one wants to say is not the characteristic of the basis of characteristics, because it is other, just like being different from it. Those who say that the basis of characteristics and the characteristics are the same, their position is also like this, the basis of characteristics and the characteristics, because they are other, the characteristic does not apply, so there is no characteristic. Even if there is no characteristic, the thing of the basis of characteristics does not exist, so for it also. If a non-characteristic thing does not exist, where will the characteristic apply? This shows that the meaning of this sentence will appear. Those inferences are also combined in order with the subject, the thing to be proven, the proving thing, and the example. For example, the characteristic of the sky is unobstructing, because it is different from it, so other characteristics, such as hardness, etc., because they are different from the sky, so those characteristics that are different from the sky are not the characteristics of the sky, similarly, the characteristic of the sky that the opponent wants to say, unobstructing, is also not the characteristic of the sky because it is different from the sky. Because that is added, so there is no characteristic, so that also makes the sky have no characteristic. If a non-characteristic thing, called the sky, does not exist, where will the characteristic apply? Because that application is not established. The meaning of this sentence is said. Those also, as the opponent said before, the basis of characteristics, the sky, is only existent, because it applies the characteristic, this shows that the meaning of the reason is not established. In addition, the meaning of the reason that applies to the basis of characteristics is, if this characteristic, the law of the basis of characteristics exists, etc., does not exist, it will not appear, so the basis of characteristics will be known, if you say so, just like the opponent said before, the basis of characteristics, the sky, is only existent, because it applies the characteristic, if you ask what is the meaning of this reason, then for this