Chinese
说。因为是诸根所取之境，所以说是多数。如果不是因为是单根所取之境，就变成不决定了。仅仅因为是诸根所取之境，并不是说就是多数。然而，因为仅仅是多数，所以不是不决定。所说“即使没有诸根差别”这句话，并不是说一切都是所要成立的。从一切诸根的差别来说多数，不是的。因为凡是诸根有差别的，那就是多数。即使智慧不同，因为是其他的原因，所以不能遮止。另外，智慧和根的差别是不同的。在什么情况下是一个，在什么情况下是其他呢？根也是不同的，智慧也是不同的，因此不会说成是其他。根也是不同的，智慧也是不同的，对于这种情况，没有说是一个的机会。对于它们的功德等等，也要清楚地知道生起现量。它们是通过与自己的所依相关的途径，来说与基等相遇的。即使如此，也不是说从一切相遇中产生知识，有道理的人已经如实地说了现量考察。因此，胜论派的现量是难以成立的。数论派则认为耳等的进入是现量。耳朵、皮肤、眼睛、舌头和鼻子，被意加持后进入境，依次执持声音、触觉、形状、味道和气味，这就是现量量。按照他们的观点，诸根是没有接触的吗？他们认为，诸根不是其他根所取的境，而是进入自己境的根，并且认为仅仅通过三种功德的增减来区分声音等种类。即使仅仅是声音，也会因为功德的增减差别而没有接触，因此应该承认由无数的根来执持。或者变成一个根。如果那里三种功德没有差别，种类就是一个，那么这样就会导致像执持不同声音一样，也会执持触觉等。
English
Saying. Because it is the object taken by the various senses, it is said to be many. If it were not because it is the object taken by a single sense, it would become uncertain. It is not that just because it is the object taken by the various senses, it is said to be many. However, because it is only many, it is not uncertain. What is said, "Even if there is no difference in the senses," does not mean that everything is to be established. It is not said to be many from the difference of all the senses. Because whatever senses are different, that is only many. Even if wisdom is different, it cannot be prevented because it is another cause. Furthermore, the difference between wisdom and the senses is different. In what case is it one, and in what case is it other? The senses are also different, and wisdom is also different, so it will not be said to be other. The senses are also different, and wisdom is also different, and there is no opportunity to say that it is one. It should also be clearly understood that manifest knowledge arises in relation to their qualities and so on. They are saying that they meet with the base and so on through the path related to their own support. Even so, it is not that knowledge arises from all encounters, and those who have reason have already spoken of manifest investigation as it is. Therefore, the manifest of the Vaisheshika school is difficult to establish. The Samkhyas consider the entry of the ear and so on to be manifest. The ear, skin, eyes, tongue, and nose, blessed by the mind, enter the object, and successively grasp sound, touch, shape, taste, and smell, which is the manifest measure. According to their view, are the senses not in contact? They believe that the senses are not the objects taken by other senses, but the senses that enter their own objects, and they believe that the types of sound and so on are distinguished only by the increase and decrease of the three qualities. Even if it is only sound, it will not be in contact due to the difference in the increase and decrease of qualities, so it should be admitted that it is held by countless senses. Or it becomes one sense. If there are no differences in the three qualities there, and the type is one, then in this way it will lead to grasping touch and so on in the same way as grasping different sounds.
Chinese
因为变化，就变成了一个感官。因为在一切中，三种功德没有差别。没有与三种功德分离的声音种类。成为声音本身的东西，不是触等。当心力等形状使暂时的差别之声等没有差别时，声音的种类在没有差别上是相似的形状的暂时的存在。与触等不同，耳朵进入同类的可执持的境。同样，对于触等也是如此。因此，如果说会陷入如是所说的过失，即使那样，触也变成眼睛的共同境。因为形状是二者的可执持，因为在山等形状上，眼睛和触等的知识被看到，所以进入自己的境是清楚的。如果按照想要以形状所作的种类差别，声音等就不会被耳朵等执持。因为什么呢？形状不是三者的行境。因为形状不是耳朵和鼻子和舌头所能执持的，所以所见的声音和气味和味道等会变成非现量。也会变成一个境获得很多形状。如果一个感官的境有差别，因为它的差别种类有很多，所以一个境会看到很多形状。因为形状没有差别而相同，所以金等器皿和装饰品的差别也会没有。因为形状是相同的，所以金和声音和物质等也会相同。同样，进入各自的境也不会成立。感官的进入是执持种类本身，还是执持安乐等差别所作的种类？如果执持种类本身，就不会执持义的自性。因为它只是执持形状，所以声音等的安乐等的自性会变成不确定。只是执持形状本身。不会执持义的差别。
English
Because of change, it becomes a single sense. Because in everything, the three qualities are not different. There is no kind of sound separate from the three qualities. What becomes sound itself is not touch, etc. When the shape of mental strength, etc., makes the temporary difference of sound, etc., without difference, the kind of sound in no difference is the temporary existence of similar shapes. Different from touch, etc., the ear enters the object to be grasped of the same kind. Likewise, it is the same for touch, etc. Therefore, if it is said that it will fall into the fault of saying as it is, even so, touch becomes the common object of the eye. Because shape is the graspable of both, because on shapes such as mountains, the knowledge of eyes and touch, etc., is seen, so entering one's own object is clear. If according to wanting the kind difference made by shape, sound, etc., will not be grasped by ears, etc. Because of what? Shape is not the object of the three. Because shape is not graspable by ears and nose and tongue, the seen sound and smell and taste, etc., will become non-manifest. It will also become that one object obtains many shapes. If there is a difference in the object of one sense, because there are many kinds of its difference, many shapes will be seen in one object. Because the shapes are not different and are the same, the difference of gold, etc., utensils and ornaments will also be absent. Because the shapes are the same, gold and sound and matter, etc., will also be the same. Likewise, entering their respective objects will also not be established. Does the entry of the senses grasp the kind itself, or does it grasp the kind made by the difference of pleasure, etc.? If it grasps the kind itself, it will not grasp the nature of the meaning. Because it only grasps the shape, the nature of pleasure, etc., of sound, etc., will become uncertain. It is only grasping the shape itself. It will not grasp the difference of meaning.
Tibetan
ང་གི་དབྱིབས་ཙམ་གྱི་སྣང་བ་ཅུང་ཟད་ལ་དམིགས་ཀྱི་དོན་ཡུལ་གྱི་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་མི་དམིགས་པས་སོ། །སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་བྱེ་བྲག་ཀྱང་མི་འཛིན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེ་བཞིན་དུ་པི་ཝང་གི་སྒྲ་དང་རྔའི་སྒྲ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་བྱེ་བྲག་ཀྱང་མི་འཛིན་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་དབྱིབས་གཞན་མི་སྲིད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དོན་འཛིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན་ཡང༌། ཡིད་བཞིན་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ཡིན། །རང་གི་དོན་ཁྱད་པར་ཅན་དུ་བྱེད་ན་ཡང་ཁྱད་པར་དེ་འཛིན་པ་ན་ཡིད་ཀྱི་འཇུག་པ་བཞིན་དུ་རང་གི་ཡུལ་ལ་རྟོག་པ་དང་བཅས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཅི་སྟེ་བདེ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པས་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་བྱས་པའི་དབྱིབས་འཛིན་ནི། དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་གནས་སྐབས་དེའི་ཡིད་ཀྱི་འཇུག་པ་བཞིན་དུ་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ཉིད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །བདེ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡང་སོ་སོར་འཛིན་པར་བྱེད་དམ། སྡོམ་པ་ཡང་འཛིན་པར་འགྱུར་གྲང༌། དེ་ལ་རེ་ཞིག་སོ་སོར་ནི་མི་འཛིན་ཏེ། རང་གི་ཡུལ་ལ་འཛིན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་དབང་པོའི་འཇུག་པ་ནི་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་གཟུང་བར་བྱ་བ་ལ་ཡིན་གྱི། སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་དང་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རང་བཞིན་སོ་སོ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་དག་རྣམས་རྣ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་འཇུག་པའི་གཟུང་བར་བྱ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གཞན་མིན་ཞེ་ན། སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལས་གཞན་ཉིད་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ཡང་གཟུང་བར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། འབྲས་མིན་པའམ། གལ་ཏེ་སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྒྲ་ལས་གཞན་མ་ཡིན་ན་ནི་ཐ་མི་ དད་ཀྱི་ལུས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པ་འབྲས་བུ་མ་ཡིན་ལ། སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལ་ཡང་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མ་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །སྙིང་སྟོབས་སྒྲའི་རང་བཞིན་དུ་རྣམ་པར་གཞག་པར་བྱས་ནས་ནི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་གང་བརྗོད་པ་དེ་ཡང་འགལ་བར་འགྱུར་རོ། །སྙིང་སྟོབས་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཕན་ཚུན་ཐ་མི་དད་དེ་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དང་གཅིག་པ་ཉིད་དུ་འགྱུར་ན་ནི་ཐ་མི་དད་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་ཡིན་པས་རྒྱུ་དང་འབྲས་བུ་དག་ཏུ་འདོད་པ་ལ་གནོད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ནིའམ་ཞེས་བརྟག་པའི་སྒྲའི་དོན་ཡིན་ནོ། །གཞན་ཡང༌། གཞན་ཉིད་མིན་ན་གཟུང་བྱ་མིན། །གལ་ཏེ་ཡང་བདེ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྒྲ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལས་གཞན་མ་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ལྟ་ན་ནི་སོ་སོར་གཟུང་བར་བྱ་བར་མི་འགྱུར་ལ། རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་ཀྱང་གཟུང་བར་བྱ་བར་མི་འགྱུར་ཞིང་དེ་ལ་ཙམ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡང་ངོ༌། །གང་དོན་གཞན་མ་ཡིན་པའི་དབང་པོའི་ཡུལ་དེ་ཐམས་ཅད་དབང་པོའི་ཡུལ་མ་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ
Chinese
因为我只是稍微注意到形状的显现，而不是注意到作为对象的事物本身的性质。声音等的差别也不会被执持。同样，琵琶的声音和鼓的声音等等的差别也不会被执持，因为那是不可能有其他形状的。如果说执持事物，那也是如意分别。如果使自己的事物成为特殊，那么在执持那个特殊时，就像意的作用一样，会变成对自己的对象带有分别。如果执持以快乐等作为特点的形状，那么那样也是如彼时意的作用一样，只是分别而已，这是它的意思。快乐等也是分别执持吗？总合也会被执持吗？对此，暂时不会分别执持，因为执持自己的对象等根的作用是对声音等所应执持的事物，而不是对勇气等。勇气等和声音等的自性不是各自不同的。因此，那些不是耳朵等作用所应执持的事物。如果说不是他者，如果说勇气等不是声音等之外的他者，那也是所应执持的事物，如果这样说，那就不是果，或者说，如果勇气等不是声音之外的，那么不异体的身体的声音等就不是果，而且对于勇气等来说，声音等也不是因。如果将勇气安立为声音的自性等等所说的一切，那也会变成相违。如果勇气等互相不异体，变成和声音等相同，那么因为是不异体的自性，所以会损害想要作为因和果的想法，等等，这是“呢”或“否”的疑问语气的意思。还有，如果不是他者，就不是所取。如果快乐等不是声音等之外的他者，那么就不会分别成为所取，极微也不会成为所取，对于它来说，微小等等也是如此。凡不是其他事物的根的对境，那些都会变成不是根的对境。
English
Because I only slightly notice the appearance of the shape, but not the nature of the thing itself as an object. The differences of sounds, etc., will also not be apprehended. Similarly, the differences of the sound of a lute and the sound of a drum, etc., will also not be apprehended, because it is impossible to have other shapes. If it is said that things are apprehended, then it is like a wish-fulfilling discrimination. If one makes one's own thing special, then in apprehending that specialty, like the function of the mind, it will become associated with discrimination towards one's own object. If one apprehends the shape characterized by pleasure, etc., then that is also just discrimination, like the function of the mind at that time, that is its meaning. Are pleasure, etc., also apprehended separately? Will the aggregate also be apprehended? To this, for the time being, they are not apprehended separately, because the function of the senses, such as apprehending one's own object, is for things to be apprehended such as sounds, etc., but not for courage, etc. The nature of courage, etc., and sounds, etc., are not separate. Therefore, those are not things to be apprehended by the function of the ears, etc. If it is said that they are not other, if it is said that courage, etc., are not other than sounds, etc., then that is also a thing to be apprehended, if it is said like that, then it is not a result, or if courage, etc., are not other than sounds, then the sounds, etc., of the non-different body are not a result, and for courage, etc., sounds, etc., are not a cause. If one establishes courage as the nature of sound, etc., then everything that is said will become contradictory. If courage, etc., are not mutually different, and become the same as sounds, etc., then because it is a non-different nature, it will harm the idea of wanting to be a cause and result, etc., this is the meaning of the interrogative particle "ni" or "or". Furthermore, if it is not other, then it is not an object to be apprehended. If pleasure, etc., are not other than sounds, etc., then they will not be apprehended separately, and atoms will also not be apprehended, and for it, minuteness, etc., is also the same. Whatever is the object of the senses that is not another thing, all of those will become not the object of the senses.