Chinese
因此，为了使剩余的论证成立，需要用例子的部分来驳斥。但事实并非如此，因为会与世俗之人相同。如果那样，世俗之人的例子就与论证无关了。那些例子只是陈述相似的法。世俗之人只是在陈述结合的例子时，只展示相似的法，就像“因为已经做了”一样。舍弃了所证和能证本身，就是论证所证的论证。正如所说的那样，这在结合中是没有的。这样就变成了仅仅是接近衡量。这样，因为结合没有提到论证的意义，所以只是展示了接近所证的衡量。就像“因为它像瓶子一样被制造，所以是无常的”一样。如果又说用不相似的法来陈述所证和能证本身，那也不是，因为用不相似的法也不能展示论证所证的论证。因为对于那个， 为了不颠倒接近衡量， 那个不相似法的结合， 只显示不相似的一面。 对于那个，世俗之人说“没有做过，所以是常”，仅仅是未做和常这两者同时被证明。通过颠倒，是为了颠倒接近常的衡量。同样，如果在这里也从论证的意义之外单独陈述例子，那么就变成了仅仅陈述接近衡量，就像世俗之人一样。如果又说即使没有提到论证，仅仅提到衡量，也能随之理解所证，那也不是，因为对于那个， 当描述颠倒时， 论证所证的论证， 或者即使是它的差别， 也会变成没有穷尽地显示相似。 如果那样接近衡量，那么就像“瓶子因为被制造所以是无常的，声音也是如此”一样，也会陈述瓶子本身是无常的。即使声音的确定没有成立。如果仅仅是接近衡量所要证明的，说“像瓶子等一样是无常的，但不是像虚空一样是常的”，那也不是。
English
Therefore, in order to establish the remaining argument, it is necessary to refute it with the part of the example. But it is not so, because it will be the same as the worldly people. If so, the example of the worldly people will be irrelevant to the argument. Those examples only state the similar dharma. Worldly people only show the similar dharma when stating the combined example, just like "because it has been done." Abandoning the probandum and the probans themselves is the argument for proving the probandum. As it is said, this is not in the combination. In this way, it becomes merely approaching measurement. In this way, since the combination does not mention the meaning of the argument, it only shows the measurement approaching the probandum. Just like "because it is made like a vase, it is impermanent." If it is said again that the probandum and the probans themselves are stated with dissimilar dharmas, that is not the case, because even with dissimilar dharmas, it is not possible to show the argument for proving the probandum. Because for that, In order not to reverse the approaching measurement, That combination of dissimilar dharmas, Only shows the dissimilar side. For that, worldly people say "it has not been done, so it is constant," merely the unmade and the constant are proved simultaneously. By reversing, it is to reverse the measurement approaching the constant. Similarly, if here too the example is stated separately from the meaning of the argument, then it becomes merely stating the approaching measurement, just like worldly people. If it is said again that even if the argument is not mentioned, merely mentioning the measurement can lead to understanding the probandum, that is not the case, because for that, When describing the reversal, The argument for proving the probandum, Or even its difference, Will become endlessly showing similarity. If it is so close to measurement, then just like "the vase is impermanent because it is made, so is sound," it will also state that the vase itself is impermanent. Even if the determination of sound is not established. If it is merely approaching measurement of what is to be proved, saying "like a vase etc. it is impermanent, but not like space it is constant," that is not the case.
Chinese
如果认为从虚空等产生的自性，会接近于显示为颠倒，那不是的。如果认为是对所要证成的差别进行接近衡量，就是无常，如瓶子等。如果那样，也会说出与布匹等相违背的产生之自性。不是具有所有种类的所要证成，也与所立誓的意义无关，因为仅仅是无常本身是所立誓的。因此，接近衡量的意义在所有方面都是不合理的。如果又认为，因为理由仅仅是宗法的法性，所以例子会与理由的意义相分离，如果那样， 即使仅仅是宗法的法性，如果是理由，也会变成具有错误的。相似的理由也会变成理由。说两者都不变，这样想，如果仅仅说出同品之例，那会有出现错误的可能，因为在异品方面也是存在的。如果仅仅说出异品，那就会变成不共。如果说出两者，那什么也不会存在，如果那样，也是存在的，九个当中存在两个。在宗法的九个法中，第一个和最后一个，第三个，在右边的女人的例子中，即使说出两个，也可能存在具有错误的。已经显示了例子。理由、所要证成两者都不存在。没有从异品方面不存在。后随、倒转两种。相似的后随也不存在。其中，不存在理由，声音是常，因为不是所触，如极微。不存在所要证成，如业。两者都不存在，如瓶子。进入异品方面，例如，凡是无常的，都不是所触，如所见的业，如极微，如虚空。那些是，如果与所要证成的法相关联，就分别说出成为其法的已成立。对于不承认虚空等是常法的情况。那些异品，对于任何都不说出随行。仅仅是理由，所要证成的意义的异品
English
If it is thought that the nature arising from space, etc., will be close to showing as reversed, that is not the case. If it is thought that the distinction to be proven is closely measured, it is impermanent, like a vase, etc. If that is the case, then the nature of arising that contradicts cloth, etc., will also be spoken of. It is not that it possesses all kinds of things to be proven, and it is also not related to the meaning of what is vowed, because only impermanence itself is what is vowed. Therefore, the meaning of close measurement is unreasonable in all aspects. If it is also thought that, because the reason is only the property of the subject, the example will be separate from the meaning of the reason, if that is the case, Even if it is only the property of the subject, if it is a reason, it will become erroneous. A similar reason will also become a reason. Saying that neither changes, thinking like this, if only the example of the similar class is stated, then there is a possibility of error, because it also exists in the dissimilar class. If only the dissimilar class is stated, then it will become uncommon. If both are stated, then nothing will exist, if that is the case, it also exists, two exist out of nine. Among the nine properties of the subject, the first and the last, the third, in the example of the woman on the right, even if both are stated, it is possible that there is an error. The example has been shown. Reason, what is to be proven, both do not exist. It does not exist from the dissimilar side. Following, reversing two kinds. The apparent following also does not exist. Among them, there is no reason, sound is constant, because it is not tangible, like atoms. What is to be proven does not exist, like karma. Both do not exist, like a vase. Entering the dissimilar side, for example, whatever is impermanent is not tangible, like visible karma, like atoms, like space. Those are, if they are related to the dharma to be proven, then they separately state what has become its dharma. For the case of not accepting space, etc., as constant dharmas. Those dissimilar classes do not state following for anything. Only the reason, the dissimilar side of the meaning to be proven
Tibetan
དང་ལྷན་ཅིག་ཡོད་པར་བསྟན་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བས་མི་རྟག་པ་ཉིད་རྟག་པས་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་མ་བྱུང་བ་སྟེ། བུམ་པ་དང་ནམ་མཁའ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །ཇི་སྐད་དུ། གཅིག་ལ་རབ་ཏུ་གྲུབ་ན་གཉིས་ཀའི་དཔེའོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་དོ། །དེ་དག་གིས་གཉིས་ཀ་ལ་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་གཉིས་དང་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་དེས་དཔེ་ལྟར་སྣང་བའོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་དོ། །འདིར་ཡང༌། རྟགས་མེད་སོགས་ དང་དཔེ་མེད་དང༌། །རྗེས་འགྲོ་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ལ་སོགས། །འབྲེལ་པར་མ་བསྟན་པ་ཡི་ཕྱིར། །ཉེར་འཇལ་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་མ་ཡིན། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་བར་སྐབས་ཀྱི་ཚིགས་སུ་བཅད་པའོ། །རྩོད་པ་བསྒྲུབ་པ་ན་དེ་དག་གི་འབྲེལ་པ་ངེས་པར་སྟོན་པ་ནི་དཔེ་སྟེ། གང་གི་བུམ་པ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །གང་གིས་འབྲེལ་བ་མི་སྟོན་པ་ནི། གང་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བ་དེ་མི་རྟག་པའོ་ཞེས་འབྱུང་བ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་བུམ་པ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་དེ་ནི་མི་རིགས་ཏེ། བསྟན་པར་བྱ་བ་དཔེ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང༌། དེ་ཙམ་གྱིས་མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་བ་ཉིད་མ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གཞན་ཡང༌། དེ་དག་གི་ཞེས་བརྗོད་མི་བྱ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། ཕན་ཚུན་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ཉིད་མིན་ཕྱིར། །མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་བའི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཉིད་དེ་གཉིས་ཀ་ལ་ཡོད་ན་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བའི་ཕྱིར་མི་རྟག་གོ་ཞེས་པ་བཞིན་དུ་མི་རྟག་པའི་ཕྱིར་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་ངོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བར་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་གཏན་ཚིགས་དེ་ཉིད་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་དང་འབྲེལ་པར་སྟོན་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱའོ། །ཆོས་མཐུན་ཙམ་གྱིས་ལྷན་ཅིག་ཏུ། །རྒྱུ་བར་སྟོན་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན། །མི་རྟག་པ་ལ་བརྟེན་པ་ཙམ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཀྱི་མི་འཁྲུལ་བ་བསྟན་པར་ནུས་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དོན་གྱིས་གཞང་ཡང་བརྗོད་ཅེ་ན། །འདི་ལྟར་གང་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བ་དེ་མི་རྟག་གོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པའི་དོན་གྱི་ཤུགས་ཀྱིས་རྟོག་པ་ལ་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་མཆོད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། དེ་ལྟ་ན་ནི་ཡང༌། དེ་ལྟར་མི་མཐུན་ཕྱོགས་དེ་བརྗོད་མི་བྱ། །དོན་གྱིས་གོ་ན་ནི་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་གྲུབ་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ན། གཏན་ཚིགས་དང་མི་མཐུན་པའི་ཕྱོགས་དག་གི་མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་བའི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་ཅི་ཞིག་བྱ། ཡིད་མི་འབྱུང་གི་འབྲེལ་པ་དེ། །མི་མཐུན་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱིས་བསྟན་པ་ན། །བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་མ་བཟུང་འགའ་ཡོད་མིན། །འདི་ལྟར་རྟག་པ་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་མ་བྱུང་ངོ་ཞེས་སྒྲུབ་པའི་སྒོ་ནས་བསྟན་པ་རྩོལ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བ་ཉིད་མི་རྟག་པ་ཉིད་ལ་གྲུབ་པ་ནི་ཅུང་ཟད་ཀྱང
Chinese
应当显示共同存在。由努力产生的事物是无常的，恒常的事物不是由努力产生的，就像瓶子和天空一样。如是说：如果在一个上完全成立，就是两者的例子。他们说，在两者上都存在的，与两者随行的是颠倒的，那就像例子一样显现。这里也是，无有相等等，以及无有例子等，随行颠倒等等，因为没有显示关联，所以不是具有衡量关联的。这是中间的偈颂。在辩论成立时，必须显示那些的关联，那就是例子，比如说是像瓶子一样。没有显示关联的是，凡是由努力产生的，就是无常的，就像这样出现。即使那样，像瓶子一样，那也是不合理的，因为要显示的不是例子，仅仅那样没有显示没有它就不会产生。其他，不应说那些的。如果问为什么，因为不是互相成立的事物。没有它就不会产生的关联，如果两者都有，那么就像因为由努力产生所以是无常一样，会变成因为无常所以由努力产生。因此，应当说理由本身是显示与要成立的事物相关联的。仅仅以相似法一起显示原因也不是。仅仅依靠无常本身，不能显示理由的不颠倒。如果问通过意义也说吗？像这样，凡是由努力产生的，就是无常的，如果说是通过所说意义的力量来遮止常法，如果这样，那么也不应说不相似的方面。如果通过意义理解，那么就是成立要成立的事物本身。与理由不相似的方面的没有它就不会产生的关联，这有什么用？如果通过不相似的方面显示没有它就不会产生的关联，那么没有成立要成立的事物是不存在的。像这样，通过成立的方式显示恒常不是由努力产生的，由努力产生本身在无常本身上成立，是丝毫也
English
It should be shown that they exist together. That which arises from effort is impermanent, and that which is permanent does not arise from effort, like a pot and the sky. As it is said: If it is completely established in one, it is an example of both. They say that what exists in both, and what accompanies both, is the reverse, which appears like an example. Here also, without signs, etc., and without examples, etc., accompanying the reverse, etc., because the connection is not shown, it is not one with a measurable connection. This is an intermediate verse. When establishing an argument, it is necessary to show the connection of those, which is the example, such as saying it is like a pot. What does not show the connection is, whatever arises from effort is impermanent, like this appears. Even so, saying it is like a pot is unreasonable, because what is to be shown is not the example, and merely that does not show that it will not arise without it. Furthermore, one should not say those. If asked why, because they are not things that establish each other. The connection that it will not arise without it, if both have it, then just as because it arises from effort it is impermanent, it will become because it is impermanent it arises from effort. Therefore, it should be said that the reason itself shows that it is related to what is to be established. Merely showing the cause together with the similar dharma is also not. Merely relying on impermanence itself cannot show the non-inversion of the reason. If asked, do you also say through meaning? Like this, whatever arises from effort is impermanent, if it is said that the power of the meaning of what is said prevents the permanent dharma, then in that case, one should not say the dissimilar aspect. If understood through meaning, then it is the establishment of the thing to be established itself. What is the use of the connection that it will not arise without it in aspects that are dissimilar to the reason? If the connection that it will not arise without it is shown through dissimilar aspects, then there is nothing that does not establish the thing to be established. Like this, showing through the way of establishing that the permanent is not produced by effort, the production by effort itself is established on impermanence itself, is not at all