Chinese
伊དུ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་是剩余的。དེ་དག་ཀྱང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་等等，阐明了偈颂的这一部分。为什么？如果说不是真实的话，因为就像这样，它们是不存在的。如果那样的话，不存在的事物怎么能对所做的事情起作用呢？回答说：不存在的铁链等事物，也像它们能够对所做的事情起作用一样，是这样认为的。就像这样，铁链等事物，如果从某个角度来看，也是不存在的。或者说是存在的。这是为了区分。说了“不存在的事物也”，与束缚等起作用并不矛盾，只是这样而已。怎么会呢？说了“就像所说的那样”，是“就像所见的那样”的同义词。为什么不是真实的呢？如果真实的话，束缚和被束缚的事物也是不存在的，这样说了。怎么样呢？回答说：就像束缚一样。束缚就是铁链等等。不存在的事物的作用也就像所见的那样，是这样认为的，应该这样理解。就像这样：存在的事物的作用是，就像盲人也看不见一样。说了“诸佛也”是剩余的。这进行了解释，存在的事物的作用是诸佛也无法看到，这样连接。对于什么？对于所做的事情。为什么呢？回答说：因为没有无相的知识和有相的知识完全断除。如果说其他的事物会完全断除，说了“完全断除的其他事物也”等等。 对于不存在的事物，没有任何差别，就像贪欲等能够束缚一样，对于痛苦的法忍等也同样会变成那样，就像痛苦的法忍等能够解脱一样。贪欲等不也会变成那样吗？回答说：贪欲等和痛苦的法忍等，从哪里有束缚和解脱，如果全知者看到有那些，贪欲等和痛苦的法忍等
English
The term "idu" is a remainder. The phrase "de dag kyang" and so on clarifies this part of the verse. Why? If it is said that it is not real, it is because they do not exist in this way. If that is the case, how can non-existent things have an effect on what is to be done? The answer is: non-existent chains and so on are also considered to have an effect on what is to be done, just as they appear to have. Just like this, chains and so on are also non-existent if viewed from a certain perspective. Or they are existent. This is for the sake of distinction. It is said that "non-existent things also," it is only connected to the statement that it is not contradictory for bondage and so on to function. How is it? It is said, "Just as it is said," which is synonymous with "Just as it appears." Why is it not real? If it were real, bondage and what is to be bound would also be non-existent, it is said. What is it like? The answer is: like bondage. Bondage is chains and so on. The function of non-existent things is also considered to be just as it appears, this should be understood in this way. Just like this: the function of existent things is, just as even a blind person cannot see. It is said that "even the Buddhas" is a remainder. This is explained, the function of existent things is that even the Buddhas do not use to see, it is connected in this way. For what? For the things to be done. Why? The answer is: because there is no complete cutting off by knowledge without aspects and knowledge with aspects. If it is said that another thing will completely cut off, it is said, "another thing that completely cuts off also" and so on. For non-existent things, there is no difference, just as desire and so on are able to bind, the forbearance of knowing the Dharma of suffering and so on will also become the same as that, just as the forbearance of knowing the Dharma of suffering and so on is able to liberate. Wouldn't desire and so on also become the same as that? The answer is: desire and so on and the forbearance of knowing the Dharma of suffering and so on, from where there is bondage and liberation, if the All-Knowing sees that there are those, desire and so on and the forbearance of knowing the Dharma of suffering and so on.
Chinese
如果存在，那么束缚和解脱就必定存在。如果不存在，那么贪欲等等，以及对于痛苦的法忍等等不存在，那么束缚和解脱也就不存在。因此，不会过于极端，因为贪欲等等也不是解脱，而对于痛苦的法忍等等的忍辱也不是束缚，这是总结性的陈述。一切名言都如其所显现的那样运用，应当理解为事情就是这样。因此，即使已经承认了事物，但在除了主张无自性的观点之外的、主张事物存在的观点中，按照事物本来的样子来施设名言，在理是不允许的。为什么不允许呢？因为不显现。所谓“事物的自性”是剩余的部分。而“对于智慧的自性”等等则是在详细解释这一点。所谓“极微”等等，是依赖于主张外境存在的观点而说的。所谓“无二”，是主张唯识的观点，按照他们的观点，远离了能取和所取的自性的、智慧的自性，就是无二。如果即使不显现，我们也要施设名言，那么，就说了“对于不显现”等等。如果认为凡是显现的就可以施设名言，那么，就说了“显现的是什么”等等。 为什么不仅仅是事物的自性呢？解释说：积聚不是事物，因为不是事物。二者也不是事物，因为不是事物。这就是所要表达的意思。所谓“从这二者”，是指从二者和积聚。所谓“那”，是指事物。为什么说“那是什么”呢？对于没有确定的事物，是没有名言的，因为名言是以确定为前提的。因此，我们所立下的“按照事物本来的样子来施设名言，在理是不允许的”的誓言，仍然保持不变。之前，我们已经承认并解释了即使显现，也不能确定。现在，对于显现本身也存在怀疑，所以说“显现”也
English
If it exists, then bondage and liberation must exist. If it does not exist, then attachment and so on, and the forbearance of knowing the Dharma in suffering and so on, do not exist, then bondage and liberation do not exist either. Therefore, it will not be too extreme, because attachment and so on are not liberation, and the forbearance of knowing the Dharma in suffering and so on is not bondage, this is a summary statement. All names are used as they appear, and it should be understood that this is the case. Therefore, even if things have been acknowledged, in the view that asserts the existence of things other than the view that asserts no self-nature, it is not reasonable to apply names according to the way things are. Why is it not allowed? Because it does not appear. The so-called "nature of things" is the remaining part. And "for the nature of wisdom" and so on are explaining this in detail. The so-called "atoms" and so on are said based on the view that asserts the existence of external objects. The so-called "non-duality" is the view that asserts consciousness-only, according to their view, the nature of wisdom that is separated from the nature of the grasper and the grasped is non-dual. If even if it does not appear, we will apply names, then it is said "for the non-appearing" and so on. If it is thought that whatever appears can be named, then it is said "what is appearing" and so on. Why is it not just the nature of things? Explaining: Accumulation is not a thing, because it is not a thing. The two are also not things, because they are not things. This is what is meant to be expressed. The so-called "from these two" refers to the two and the accumulation. The so-called "that" refers to the thing. Why say "what is that"? For things that are not certain, there is no name, because names are based on certainty. Therefore, our vow that "it is not reasonable to apply names according to the way things are" remains unchanged. Previously, we have acknowledged and explained that even if it appears, it cannot be determined. Now, there is doubt about the appearance itself, so it is said "appearance" also