English
Nor is it seen or touched. The word "also" is an admission in conventional truth, in ultimate truth there is no seeing or touching whatsoever. This is exemplified by dreams and illusions, whatever mind possesses the nature of merit and non-merit, the mind that has such a nature, like dreams and illusions, is not inherently permanent, even in conventional truth it is refuted and destroyed by valid cognition, nor is it non-existent. Even so, it still appears to exist together with the mind. It is said "mind and" etc., because the simultaneous arising of mind and feeling is co-emergent, so that mind does not see feeling, meaning it does not experience. Although the mind that arises later does experience the previous feeling that has just ceased, that is memory, not experience. Co-emergent forms, etc., are also not seen or touched, but only exist as the cause of being apprehended, when the moment does not cease, it will be remembered like rat poison, however, forms, etc., temporarily appear to be different from the mind, but feelings, etc., are not, so it is said that way. Therefore I said "oneself by oneself" etc., oneself does not experience oneself, because that is contradictory. "Another" refers to another mind. The feeler refers to I and person etc. "To this collection of no-self" refers to this collection of no-self in the manner described above. "Who will harm this" refers to because harm and harmer have no self-nature, so who will this feeling harm? It will not harm. Having thus spoken of the mindfulness of feeling, in order to speak of the mindfulness of mind, it is said "mind is" etc., it has particular control over forms etc., and produces its own consciousness, so it is the faculty, namely the eye faculty, ear faculty, nose faculty, tongue faculty, body faculty, mind faculty, and it does not abide on those either. Here this is constant and stable, and can be harmed, so it is form, namely blue etc. The word "etc." includes sound and smell.
Chinese
味，触，法等聚集，在那里也不存在。中间也不存在，是指在根与境二者之间也不存在。那又是因为什么呢，所谓内，在身体内也不存在，在身体外也不存在。所谓其他也不存在，是指不在身体内外，在其他地方也不存在。不住于境与根之外，如果可以，意的根是心本身，怎么能说不住于根等等呢？意和心二者是智慧的自性，意也成了近住念处，这样说未免太过分了吧。因此，也说了它们的差别，因此才说了身体哪里有什么不存在等等。不混合，是指与身体和面容，不是他体，是指不是在身体之外没有基础地存在。心因为无色，有时心混合而存在，与身体也是他体，如果这样说，因此才说了从那里等等。在哪里，是指色等所知的事物因为不是刹那，所以没有部分，因为同时坏灭消失，即使有部分，也因为没有事物，所以没有心的前一刹那。 识和所识即使像秤杆一样同时存在，但因为一个不是一个的因，所以真实地，那二者也不存在。因此才说了那样。这说的是法近住念处，像如上所说的那样，一切法有生是不可知也不可证实的。还有，如果说世俗中有智慧自性，那如果确定地考察，因为自证没有成立，所以那也不存在，因此二谛也不真实存在。或者，如果世俗因其他因或后者的影响而变成世俗，因为单独成立，所以众生不会从痛苦中解脱，因为执着于其他的世俗，怎么能从痛苦中解脱呢？有些书上说：因此没有涅槃。也就是说，如果成立了世俗是其他的，变成了其他
English
Taste, touch, and dharmas are gathered, and they do not exist there either. "Not in between" means that it does not exist between the two, the sense faculty and the object. And why is that? "Inside" means that it does not exist inside the body, nor does it exist outside the body. "Other" means that it does not exist in other places that are not inside or outside the body. Not abiding in other objects and sense faculties, if it is possible, the root of mind is the mind itself, how can one say that it does not abide in the root, etc.? Since both mind and heart are of the nature of intelligence, it would be too much to say that mind is also a close placement of mindfulness. Therefore, their differences are also stated, and that is why it is said that there is nothing in the body, etc. "Not mixed" means that it is not the body and face. "Not different" means that it does not exist without a basis outside the body. Since the mind is formless, sometimes the mind mixes and exists, and it is also different from the body. If you say so, that is why it is said from there, etc. "Where is it?" means that the knowable things such as form are not momentary, so there are no parts, because they are destroyed and disappear at the same time, and even if there are parts, there is no previous moment of mind because there is no thing. Even if consciousness and the object of consciousness exist together like a balance beam, since one is not the cause of the other, in reality, neither of them exists. That is why it is said that way. This is about the Dharma Mindfulness, and as mentioned above, it is impossible to know or prove that all dharmas have birth. Also, if it is said that there is a nature of wisdom in the conventional, then if we examine it carefully, since self-awareness is not established, then that does not exist either, therefore the two truths do not truly exist. Or, if the conventional becomes conventional due to other causes or the influence of the latter, since it is established separately, sentient beings will not be liberated from suffering, because they cling to other conventionalities, how can they be liberated from suffering? Some books say: Therefore there is no Nirvana. That is to say, if it is established that the conventional is other, it has become other.
Chinese
因此，众生不会从悲伤中解脱，这也是同样的道理。因此，为了回答别人提出的异议，这里提到了“是”等等。所谓“他心之分别念”，是指其他的或者另外的，即在其他的相续中或者以未来的方式，认为有心的世俗。提到心是为了区别于语法学家的分别念。而且，在其他方的心中所设想的，这里不应接受，因为对于这个论述来说，确立是核心。提到分别念是为了表明那个心也只是虚假的。因此，才提到了“自己”等等。那么，这个“他”是谁呢？因此，提到了“那个”等等，即凡是自己世俗中没有的，那一定是紧接着通过分别观察而确定为不存在的。以前没有破除的，没有观察时是令人愉悦地存在的。也就是像这样：最初寻找那个时，应当说一切都存在。当理解了诸法并且没有执着之后，就在那之后是寂静。就像所说的那样。如果在没有观察之前它存在，那么之后通过观察也不能破除，因为其他人也说，对于这个来说，没有什么需要破除的等等。如果这样说，因此，提到了“那个不存在”等等，即那时自己或者他人的世俗是不存在的。即使那是不分别念，也是通过分别念来观察因和果的。这样，通过分别念来观察，这两者是互相依赖的，没有所观察的就没有分别念，没有那个就没有所观察的。那么，应该如何分别观察呢？提到了“如何显现”等等，即依赖于对于辩论者和反驳者双方都显现的法和有法，色等等如何显现的任何事物。中观派就是因为存在而不是真实的，所以类似于幻觉。这样，所有在显现上进行分别观察的都应该说出来。对于进行观察的也应该进行
English
Therefore, sentient beings will not be liberated from sorrow, and this is also the same meaning. Therefore, in order to answer the objections raised by others, "is" and so on are mentioned here. The so-called "other-mind's conceptual thought" refers to others or another, that is, in the continuum of others or in a future way, the conventional truth of thinking that there is mind. Mentioning mind is to distinguish it from the conceptualization of grammarians. Moreover, what is conceived in the minds of other parties should not be accepted here, because for this discourse, establishing is the core. Mentioning conceptual thought is to show that that mind is also merely false. Therefore, "self" and so on are mentioned. So, who is this "other"? Therefore, "that" and so on are mentioned, that is, whatever is not in one's own conventional truth, then it must be determined as non-existent immediately through analytical observation. What has not been destroyed before, exists pleasantly when not observed. That is, like this: When initially searching for that, one should say that everything exists. After understanding the dharmas and being without attachment, then after that is stillness. Just like what was said. If it exists before being observed, then it cannot be destroyed by observation later, because others also say that for this, there is nothing to be destroyed, and so on. If one says so, therefore, "that does not exist" and so on are mentioned, that is, at that time, the conventional truth of oneself or others does not exist. Even if that is non-conceptual thought, it is also through conceptual thought that cause and effect are observed. In this way, by observing through conceptual thought, these two are mutually dependent, without what is to be observed there is no conceptual thought, and without that there is nothing to be observed. So, how should one analytically observe? "How it appears" and so on are mentioned, that is, relying on whatever appears to both the debater and the refuter, the dharma and the possessor of dharma, form and so on. The Madhyamika is not true because it exists, so it is similar to illusion. In this way, all analytical observations on appearances should be stated. For those who are observing, one should also
Chinese
难道不是这样吗？因此说了“何时”等等。我们已经承认了辨别是有意义的，因为在辨别和考察可辨别的事物（如真如）时，没有考察的立足点。正因为没有立足点，它才不会生起和产生。辨别本身也是自性不生的。这不生就被称为涅槃。此外，说这个能思者和所思之物是真如或真实存在或不存在，这本身就是非常矛盾和痛苦的。如果困难地存在呢？说了“如果”等等。 能思者是识，所思之物是境。这样，如果没有识和所识，识怎么会存在呢？这清楚地表明了所说的能思和所思二者是相互依赖的。即使已经确定是相互依赖，那么识和境是否像父子一样存在呢？因此说了“父亲”等等。就像父亲和儿子相互依赖一样，实际上是不存在和不成立的。同样，识和境也以产生者和被产生者的形式相互依赖。因此，也应同样看待这两者的不存在。“苗”等等是其他人的话。“苗之外”等等是回答。如果通过苗之外的识来认识苗，从而推断出种子的存在，那么所识之物怎么会有所识之识呢？因为没有自证，所以识是不存在的。这就是意思。这样，又如何从识来推断种子的存在呢？因此说了“暂时”等等。“暂时”一词是指依赖于推论等等。“一切”是指不否定因缘聚合显现之能力。正因为如此，说了“莲花”等等。那些这样说和说无因者说：谁创造了莲花的茎等等呢？
English
Is it not so? Therefore, it is said, "When," and so on. We have acknowledged that discernment is meaningful, because when discerning and examining the objects of discernment, such as Suchness, there is no basis for examination. Precisely because there is no basis, it does not arise or come into being. Discernment itself is also unborn in nature. This unborn state is said to be Nirvana. Furthermore, to say that the thinker and the object of thought are Suchness or truly existent or non-existent is itself very contradictory and painful. If it exists with difficulty, then what? It is said, "If," and so on. The thinker is consciousness (識，vijñāna)，and the object of thought is the object (境，viṣaya). Thus, if there is no consciousness and no object of consciousness, how can consciousness exist? This clearly shows that the thinker and the object of thought are mutually dependent, as has been said. Even if it has been determined that they are mutually dependent, do consciousness and object exist in the manner of father and son? Therefore, it is said, "Father," and so on. Just as father and son are mutually dependent, they are actually non-existent and unestablished. Similarly, consciousness and object are mutually dependent in the manner of producer and produced. Therefore, the non-existence of these two should also be viewed in the same way. "Sprout," and so on, are the words of others. "Other than sprout," and so on, is the answer. If one knows the sprout through consciousness other than the sprout, and thereby infers the existence of the seed, how can the object of knowledge have knowledge of the object? Because there is no self-awareness, that consciousness does not exist. That is the meaning. Thus, how can one infer the existence of the seed from consciousness? Therefore, it is said, "For a while," and so on. The word "for a while" refers to reliance on inference, and so on. "All" refers to the non-negation of the power of the aggregation of causes and conditions as it appears. Precisely for this reason, it is said, "Lotus," and so on. Those who say this and those who say there is no cause say: Who created the lotus stem, and so on?