English
Since that is what? It should be clarified that it does not exist. What are rabbit horns and so on? That is known to be non-existent among the wise. Since those are negated, why not Accept that aggregates and so on exist? That is not reasonable, because of what? For those who speak of existence and non-existence, Neither of those two is established, Because they exist in dependence on each other. Depending on the horns of a cow, here, If rabbit horns and so on are negated, When do you consider that to exist? How do you consider that to not exist? Does it become a single coarse thing, or Does it become the nature of accumulated particles? Neither of the two ways is acceptable, Because those are harmed by valid cognition. Because it is not permissible to appear and not appear, etc., Because it is not the domain of appearance. Therefore, form is not the nature Of either of the two, it is also impossible. If each particle is separated, The horns of a cow are not visible, There is nothing apart from that, and those Are not its own nature. The particles also, truly, It is not permissible to be one, Because it is explained that there are faults Such as being differentiated by divisions of direction. Therefore, those with wisdom, Regarding what they depend on to consider that the Horns of a rabbit and so on do not exist, Should ascertain that non-existence. Because all things are of such A nature, the wise Should be very certain that there is no accomplishment through mutual dependence, It is extremely certain. Therefore, the external object that is apprehended, Has nothing at all in its own nature, Just like to one with cataracts, This mistaken knowledge appears. Having seen all of this, the Bhagavan, The omniscient protector, the best of speakers, The nature of great compassion, In the sutra called "The Holy Lankavatara," In order for the intelligent to See only mind, To the bodhisattva Mahamati, Having called out, he clearly taught: Hair entanglements and illusions, Dreams, cities of gandharvas, Torches, mirages of various kinds, Appear to people even though they do not exist. Just like mirages in the sky, Dreaming of a barren woman in a dream, Likewise, the consciousness that appears as things, Appears as various forms. Also, it is said in that very sutra: Conditions, elements, and aggregates, And the own-nature of dharmas, Designated persons and mind, Are like dream hair entanglements. It is said like this. Also said: Particles, etc.
Chinese
我观察到，色法是无法真正确定的。唯识的安立，是恶见者所不容的。这是经文里所说的。如果有人对此外道，说外境存在等等，唯识的安立，我是不会承认的。那你为什么对我，说唯识的安立，是恶见者所不容的，来强加这个过失呢？那些不了解的人才会那样说。对于那些胡说八道的人，这里，圣《楞伽经》等经典中，诸佛曾多次宣说三界唯是心。具有正理的妙理，应向智者清楚地阐述。如果那里所说的不是量，为什么你的经文是量呢？因为是佛所说，两者相同。为什么不对这个经文做解释呢？另外，如果色法是独立存在的，那么天人、人类、食肉者等的想法，由于相互矛盾，又怎么会变得不同呢？特别是，对于修习禅定的人来说，地又怎么会变成水等呢？对于拥有无边虚空者来说，那又怎么会变成城市呢？因为对于一个事物来说，那种真实的自性是不合理的。因此，具有正量的，无自性的法相是美好的。因此，声名远扬的法称论师，思索了各种知识后，在自己的论著中说道：在其他情况下，对于一个事物来说，以各种形象显现，显现又怎么会是真实的呢？因为它破坏了唯一性。诸如此类。如果像显现的那样，色法也是如此真实，那么那时，众生们也会毫不费力地获得解脱。另外，如果事物真实地，想要从自己的因中产生，为了安住自己的自性，那又为什么要依赖心识呢？光明等从自己的因中，光明等自性产生的事物，为了变成它的自性，永远不需要依赖其他。从陶匠等产生的，瓶子等事物，无论如何，对于不漏水等自身的目的，也根本不需要依赖任何东西。如果外境有自己的体性，即使没有心识也会被执着。但这种情况并没有出现，那又怎么会
English
I have observed that form cannot be truly determined. The establishment of Mind-Only is not accepted by those with evil views. This is what is said in the scriptures. If someone says to an outsider that external objects exist, etc., I will not accept the establishment of Mind-Only. Then why do you impose this fault on me, saying that the establishment of Mind-Only is not accepted by those with evil views? Only those who do not understand would say that. To those who speak nonsense, here, in the sutras such as the Holy Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddhas have repeatedly declared that the three realms are only mind. The wonderful reasoning with valid logic should be clearly explained to the wise. If what is said there is not valid, why is your scripture valid? Because it is spoken by the Buddha, the two are the same. Why not explain this scripture? Furthermore, if form exists independently, then how can the thoughts of gods, humans, flesh-eaters, etc., become different due to mutual contradiction? In particular, for those who practice meditation, how can earth become water, etc.? For those who possess infinite space, how can that become a city? Because for one thing, that true nature is unreasonable. Therefore, the appearance of no self-nature, which possesses valid measure, is beautiful. Therefore, the renowned teacher Dharmakirti, after contemplating various kinds of knowledge, said in his own treatise: In other cases, for one thing, appearing in various forms, how can the appearance be true? Because it destroys the uniqueness. And so on. If form is as real as it appears, then at that time, beings would also effortlessly attain liberation. Furthermore, if things truly want to arise from their own cause, in order to abide in their own nature, then why rely on consciousness? Light and so on, things that arise from their own cause, the nature of light and so on, in order to become its nature, never need to rely on others. Things like pots that arise from potters, etc., in any case, for their own purpose of not leaking water, etc., do not need to rely on anything at all. If the external world has its own nature, it will be grasped even without consciousness. But this situation does not appear, then how can it
Chinese
欲执持此理。因此，具慧之殊胜者，声名远播、威慑一切的，论师法称，于其论著中所说，远离见解之差别，为不执著故，彼为执著之故，如显现蓝色一般，并非仅仅外境有实。如是说。又，诸法于何处观察，于自性中实无有，如是彼等一与多之自性皆非有。蕴等差别之体性，乃是作用之差别，然彼亦非真实，故彼亦无体性。如是说。同样，具有对境之相的识，亦由他者而完全断绝外境，以理而言极不应理，因梦等其他显现，相非量故。因不具亲近性，故非无相之心。若以显示他显现之识而完全断绝，然以无差别故，一切将成能知一切。如是思虑一切后，诸智者中之殊胜者，清净之法之生者，法称亦宣说，显现彼境之自性，若不离虚妄而执境，如何能为真实？如是吾亦不知。如是等等。因此，具慧者，不应观察色之实体。彼于无始之时，以名为“实有”之恶兆，扰乱具心者之心，由执取能取所取之分别，不堪之风所动摇，不能安住于寂静。若外境无有，则彼时于经藏中，能仁所说之四大之体性，则极相违。无有基则无体性，任何智者皆不能示现。因此，此乃自性，应极清晰地了知。无余遍知之救护者，医师于此任何处，皆未说无有之体性，譬如我一般。如是某些智者说，于此，外境乃遣除者，如是极不应理，具慧之中观者如是说。一切见者之体性，彼等乃是有者
English
Desiring to hold this reasoning. Therefore, the most excellent of those with wisdom, the one whose fame is boundless and subdues all, the master Dharmakirti, in his own treatises, has said, being free from the distinctions of views, for the sake of non-attachment, that is for the sake of attachment, like the appearance of blue, it is not that only the external objects are real. Thus it is said. Furthermore, wherever phenomena are examined, they are not truly existent in their essence. Thus, they are not existent as either one or many. The characteristics of the aggregates and so forth are merely differences in function. However, since that is also not truly existent, they are also devoid of characteristics. Thus it is said. Similarly, the consciousness that possesses the aspect of an object, also by another, completely cutting off the external object, is extremely unreasonable in terms of logic, because dreams and other appearances are not valid cognitions. Because it does not possess proximity, it is not a mind without aspects. Even if it is completely cut off by the consciousness that shows other appearances, since there is no difference, everything would become knowing everything. Having contemplated all such things, the most excellent of the wise, the producer of pure Dharma, Dharmakirti also proclaimed, the nature of the appearance of that object, if one grasps the object without separating from illusion, how can it be true? I also do not know such a thing. Thus and so on. Therefore, the wise should not examine the substance of form. That which exists from beginningless time, by the evil omen called "real," disturbs the minds of those who possess minds, and whatever is moved by the unbearable wind of the conceptualization of the grasped and the grasper, does not abide in tranquility. If there is no external object, then at that time in the Sutras, the nature of the four great elements spoken of by the capable one, would be extremely contradictory. Without a basis, there is no characteristic, and no wise person can show it. Therefore, this is the nature, it should be clearly understood. The protector who knows everything without exception, the physician, has not spoken of the nature of non-existence anywhere here, like myself. Thus some wise people say, in this, the external object is the eliminator, thus it is extremely unreasonable, the wise Madhyamikas say. The nature of the one who sees everything, those are existent.