Chinese
因此，为了显示所有处皆为空性，所以说了“何时也”等等。这表明，对于色处，通过颜色和形状的区分，存在两种色，这种词语的区分，并没有通过成立和认识的次第来成立。颜色和形状那些，以及蓝色和黄色等等，并不是以不同的区分而存在和拥有的。颜色和形状这两者，执持其不同的认识，即所取的识也是不存在的。对于任何以不同方式存在或成立的事物，那些作为量，又怎么能被认为是实有呢？如果说色以单一形式存在，那么就说了“色也”等等。这里所说的“说”，是指代表经文的意思。因此，意思是说，色是唯一的，也不是从成立为单一形式的边际而说的。因此，因为没有如所承诺般成立，所以没有色处。如果说依赖于眼和色而生起眼识，那么如何纠正这种宗义呢？因为说不存在的事物作为某事物的所依是不合理的。为了显示这也是没有意义的，所以说了“眼识于眼”等等。因为处，是指生处，即生起和增长之处。那也不是除了产生果之外的。产生果，要么是同境的果，要么是不同境的果，其他形式是不可能的。无论哪种情况，眼和色都不可能是处，就像这样，“眼识不生于眼，不生于色”，这表明它不是同境的果，而“中间没有”这表明它不是不同境的果。因为在那的境和非境中，它都是不可见的。因此，又完全考察了识是从两个处生起的
English
Therefore, in order to show that all sources are empty in nature, it is said "when also" and so on. This shows that, for the form source, through the distinction of color and shape, there are two kinds of form, and this distinction of words is not established by the order of establishment and cognition. Those colors and shapes, as well as blue and yellow, etc., do not exist and possess with different distinctions. Those two, color and shape, the cognition that grasps their difference, that is, the apprehended consciousness, is also non-existent. For anything that exists or is established differently, how can those, as valid cognitions, be considered real? If it is said that form exists in a single form, then it is said "form also" and so on. Here, the word "said" refers to the meaning of representing the scriptures. Therefore, the meaning is that form is unique, and it is not said from the boundary of being established as a single form. Therefore, since it is not established as promised, there is no form source. If it is said that eye consciousness arises depending on the eye and form, then how can this tenet be corrected? Because it is unreasonable to say that something that does not exist is the basis of something. To show that this is also meaningless, it is said "eye consciousness in the eye" and so on. Because source means the place of birth, that is, the place where birth arises and increases. That is not other than producing the result. Producing the result is either a result of the same object or a result of a different object, and other forms are impossible. In either case, the eye and form cannot be sources, just like this, "eye consciousness does not arise in the eye, does not arise in the form," which shows that it is not a result of the same object, and "there is nothing in between" which shows that it is not a result of a different object. Because it is not visible in that object and non-object. Therefore, it is also completely examined that consciousness arises from both sources.
Chinese
显示其为错觉，即指眼和色等。因此，像这样排除眼和色等是生处本身之后，从体性上也清楚地显示出来，即如果说是眼等。能见者和所见之物本身被认为是眼和色的体性。就像这样，眼睛凭借所见之物，并非依赖于它的意识。因为完全确定的事物是所见之物。这样说。这也不合理，像这样，作为事物本身应该承认的眼之自性，是可见还是不可见？如果它不能看见自己，那又如何能看见色呢？“它”这个词是多余的。这样显示说，观看的行为不是眼睛的法，如果是它的法性，那它的自性无疑会被看见。因为不是那些法的，也凭借什么在什么上能被看见，对于实际上不是谁的法却说没有看见，这怎么可能呢？即使那不是它的法性，也会被认为是不能被看见的法性。就像听者等一样，因为眼睛脱离了观看的行为，所以没有能见者，因此眼睛的体性是空性。那么，依赖于它的体性的具有体性的色，也同样是无体性的，这将会通过意义来显示。为了总结这一点，因此，眼和色无我。这样说，无我不是具有自性，而是没有事物，这是它的意思。为了显示将这个道理应用到其他事物上，说了其余的生处也与此相同。通过什么道理显示了眼之生处和色之生处没有自性，同样也应该通过那个道理来理解其余的生处，如耳和声等没有自性。因此，像这样，眼等所有生处都已经显示为空性，但百中还有一些人会怀疑它们是否具有其他自性的体性。
English
To show that it is an illusion, that is, referring to the eye and form, etc. Therefore, after eliminating that the eye and form, etc., are the sense-spheres themselves, it is clearly shown from the nature as well, that is, if it is said to be the eye, etc. The seer and the seen object themselves are considered to be the nature of the eye and form. Just like this, the eye relies on the seen objects, not on the consciousness that depends on it. Because the completely determined thing is the seen object. This is what is said. This is also not reasonable, like this, should the self-nature of the eye, which should be acknowledged as a thing itself, be visible or invisible? If it cannot see itself, then how can it see form? The word "it" is superfluous. It is shown in this way that the act of seeing is not the dharma of the eye, and if it is its dharma-nature, then its self-nature will undoubtedly be seen. Because it is not the dharma of those, and also by what means can it be seen on what, how is it possible to speak of not seeing what is actually whose dharma? Even if that is not its dharma-nature, it will be considered as a dharma-nature that cannot be seen. Just like the listener, etc., because the eye is separated from the act of seeing, there is no seer, therefore the nature of the eye is emptiness. Then, the form that has nature and depends on its nature is also without nature, which will be shown through meaning. In order to summarize this point, therefore, the eye and form are without self. It is said that without self is not having self-nature, but it means that there is no thing. In order to show that this reasoning is applied to other things, it is said that the remaining sense-spheres are also the same as this. By what reasoning is it shown that the sense-sphere of the eye and the sense-sphere of form are without self-nature, and likewise, it should also be understood through that reasoning that the remaining sense-spheres, such as the ear and sound, etc., are without self-nature. Therefore, like this, all the sense-spheres such as the eye have already been shown to be empty, but there are still some among hundreds who will doubt whether they have the nature of other self-natures.