Chinese
因此，将自己的言辞和论典合为一体而说。论典会损害力量的所依，为了阐述这个道理，就像如果自己不是量，言辞就不会被接受一样，如果不依赖论典，就不能用它所宣扬的道理来进行辨析，为了显示这种相似性，所以将自己的言辞一同阐述。因此，为了用譬喻说明没有可衡量的意义的量，也同样地说明，如果没有量，论典和言辞都是不成立的。这是对与自己言辞相违背的清晰譬喻，而对于圣教，这只是略微地指出了一个方面。对此的譬喻是，法不会转移而带来安乐。因为所立的法性是依赖于它的，如果损害了它，因为没有基础，所以不能对差别进行辨析，因此对于那样的境，无疑地，论典必须成为量。现在，如果有人问：就像在河岸边洗澡等非正法不能使之清净一样，这不是违背了所承诺的过失吗？回答是：因为所有使人领悟未见之事的论典都没有那样说，所以禁止是没有过失的。与自己承诺的所依相违背的论典会成为损害，但其他的则不然，因为没有承诺。因为说洗澡能清净的论典，它自己的言辞也损害了那个意义。非正法是从所有论典中将贪著等立为根本，因为对于不贪著、不嗔恨、不愚痴的人，不会承诺为罪恶。那个安立损害了说洗澡等能清净罪恶的说法。因为如果因没有穷尽，果就不会逆转，就像甜的、凉的、油腻的东西对于由胆病引起的情况一样。因此，对于圣教所见之义，说相违背大多是思考，凡是进入可见和不可见境的论典，以事物力量进入的量，以及不被自己言辞所损害的，就应该接受
English
Therefore, one speaks by combining one's own words and treatises into one. The treatise harms the basis of power, and in order to explain this meaning, just as speech is not accepted if one is not a valid authority, so too, if one does not rely on the treatise, one cannot use the doctrines it proclaims to discriminate. In order to show this similarity, one's own words are explained together. Therefore, in order to illustrate that there are no valid authorities with measurable meanings, it is also similarly stated that without valid authorities, treatises and words are not valid. This is a clear illustration of contradiction with one's own words, and for the scriptures, this only slightly indicates one aspect. An example of this is that the Dharma does not transfer and bring happiness. Because the established Dharma nature depends on it, if it is harmed, because there is no basis, one cannot discriminate the differences, so for such an object, undoubtedly, the treatise must become a valid authority. Now, if someone asks: Just as bathing on the riverbank and other non-Dharma practices do not purify, is this not a fault of contradicting what was promised? The answer is: Because all treatises that make one realize unseen things do not say that, there is no fault in prohibiting it. A treatise that contradicts the basis of one's own promise becomes a harm, but others do not, because there is no promise. Because the treatise that says bathing can purify, its own words also harm that meaning. Non-Dharma is established as having attachment and so on as its root from all treatises, because for those who are not attached, not hateful, and not deluded, it is not promised as evil. That establishment harms the statement that bathing and so on can purify sins. Because if the cause is not exhausted, the result will not be reversed, just as sweet, cool, and oily things are for conditions caused by bile. Therefore, for the meaning seen by the scriptures, saying contradiction is mostly thinking, whatever treatise enters visible and invisible realms, the valid authority that enters by the power of things, and that which is not harmed by its own words, should be accepted.
Chinese
因此，对于不依赖的事物，即使陈述与经论相违，也没有损害，而是会造成阻碍。因为两者力量相等，例如自己的言辞一样。那时是与自己的言辞相违，而不是与经论相违。在这些之中，哪个具有 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) ，它就能损害其他。如果不是这样，那么立宗者力量相等，或者具有 अनुमाना (anumāna， अनुमान，推理) ，对于如实进入事物没有道理的立宗，怎么会造成损害？已经遮止了圣言是 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण)。因此，对于承诺后进行破斥的人，会出现这种过失。正因为如此，通过损害来行事。因为承诺，即使不是从推理之外产生的，但将承诺单独列出是为了显示对象的差别。如果不是这样，就会过于宽泛，或者单独列出就没有意义了。将自己的言辞单独列出的理由也是为了阻碍仅仅陈述言辞。如果 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) 不是，那么对于经论也同样适用，因此也会造成阻碍吗？如果存在基础，就会成为阻碍。例如，对于已成立的言辞， प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) 和其他相互之间，以及对于已成立的妇女，依赖于法的生育和其他的法一样。在任何地方，如果所立宗的事物本身没有成立，那么什么用什么来阻碍呢？因为根本没有机会。因此，通过确立所立宗的事物，才能使经论成为 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) ，因此它才能造成损害。如果经论不是 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) ，那么如何确立所立宗的事物呢？因为已经承诺为 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण)。那么，因为确立为 प्रमाण (pramāṇa，量， प्रमाण) ，承诺本身就能确立所立宗的事物，并且其他的法也由此确立。与经论相违与与自己的言辞相违没有差别，因此会造成阻碍，但不会造成损害。那么，现在这有什么区别呢？一点也没有。那么，如何分别陈述呢？通过它们的差别，就会变成那样。因为前者所建立的被后者破坏，所以是与承诺相违。正因为如此，与先前承诺的
English
Therefore, even if stating something contradictory to scriptures doesn't harm an object that is not dependent, it will cause an obstruction. This is because both have equal strength, like one's own words. At that time, it contradicts one's own words, but not the scriptures. Among these, whichever has प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण), it harms the other. If it is not so, how can a proposition with equal strength, or with अनुमाना (anumāna, inference, अनुमान), harm a proposition that has no reason to enter into things as they are? It has already been refuted that scriptures are प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण). Therefore, this fault will occur to those who refute after making a promise. For the same reason, it acts by harming. Because of the promise, even if it is not outside of inference, separating the promise is to show the difference of the object. If it is not so, it will be too broad, or separating it will be meaningless. The reason for separating one's own words is also to obstruct merely stating words. If it is not प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण), it is the same for the scriptures, so will it also cause obstruction? If there is a basis, it will become an obstruction. For example, for an established word, प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण) and the other are mutually, and for an established woman, relying on the dharma to give birth and other dharmas are the same. Wherever the subject itself is not established, what will obstruct what? Because there is no opportunity at all. Therefore, by establishing the subject, the scriptures become प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण), and therefore it harms. If the scriptures are not प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण), then how can the subject be established? Because it has been promised as प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण). Then, because it is established as प्रमाण (pramāṇa, measure, प्रमाण), the promise itself establishes the subject, and other dharmas are also established by it. Contradicting the scriptures is no different from contradicting one's own words, so it causes obstruction, but it does not cause harm. So, what is the difference between this now? There is none at all. Then, how are they stated separately? Through their differences, it will become so. Because what was established by the former is destroyed by the latter, it is contradictory to the promise. For the same reason, it is contradictory to the previously promised.
Tibetan
ཞེས་བཤད་དོ། །ངག་དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་རང་གི་དོན་དང་འགལ་བ་ནི་རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་འགལ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན་རྗེས་སུ་དཔོག་པ་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ན་གེགས་བྱེད་པར་ཡང་ཇི་ལྟར་འགྱུར་ཞེ་ན། དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་སྟོབས་མཚུངས་པས་སོ། །གལ་ཏེ་དེ་ལ་གཅིག་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ན་གྲུབ་པ་ཁོ་ནར་འགྱུར་གྱི་གེགས་བྱེད་པར་ནི་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། ཚད་མས་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ལ་གནོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེ་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་དངོས་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཚད་མ་ཡིན་པས་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཁོ་ནའོ་ཞེ་ན། ཁས་བླངས་པར་ཁྱད་པར་མེད་ཀྱང་ཇི་ལྟར་གཅིག་ནི་ཚད་མ་དང་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ལ། གཞན་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེས་ནི་འདི་ན་གྱི་ནའོ། །འདི་ནི་ཚད་མ་ཉིད་སྐྱེས་བུའི་འདོད་པས་བྱས་པ་ཡང་ཡོངས་སུ་རྫོགས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་བསྟན་བཅོས་དང་འགལ་བ་ལ་གེགས་བྱེད་པའི་སྐྱོན་ཡོད་པ་དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་དེ་ལས་དོན་ལ་ཐེ་ཚོམ་དུ་འགྱུར་བ་ཁོ་ནར་ཟད་ལ། དེ་ནི་ཕྱོགས་ཁ་ན་མ་ཐོ་བ་མེད་པར་བསྟན་པ་ལ་ཡང་མཚུངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཇི་ལྟར་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་སྐྱོན་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན། དེའི་ཚིག་ལས་ངེས་པ་མི་སྐྱེ་བའི་ཕྱིར་ཚིག་སྐྱོན་ཡོན་ཆགས་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འོ་ན་ཇི་ལྟར་ཞེ་ན། གང་ཞིག་ཚིག་ཇི་ཙམ་གྱིས་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་དེ་མི་འགྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དམ་བཅའ་བའི་ཚིག་གིས་ནི་རང་གིས་བསམ་པ་སྲིད་པར་བསྟན་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ན། དེ་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་ཚད་མས་གནོད་ན་མི་སྲིད་པ་བཞིན་དུ་གཅིག་ལ་འགལ་བ་ཉེ་བར་སྡུད་ན་ཡང་སྲིད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། ། གཞན་གྱི་དོན་གྱི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པར་ནི་ཚིག་གི་སྐྱོན་གཙོར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་དོན་གྱི་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དོན་ཇི་ལྟ་བ་བཞིན་མ་ཡིན་པར་རྗོད་པས་སྨྲ་བ་པོ་ལ་ཀླན་ཀར་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་ཁས་བླངས་པ་དང་འགལ་བ་དག་ལ་བྱེ་བྲག་ཅི་ཡང་མེད་ན། འོ་ན་སྔར་ཁས་བླངས་པ་དང་འགལ་བའི་ཡུལ་ལ་བྱེ་བྲག་ཅི་ཞིག་ཡོད་ཅེ་ན། གཞུང་ལུགས་འགའ་ཞིག་ལ་མ་བརྟེན་པར་གང་ལ་སྤྱོད་པ་མི་འཇུག་པ་དེ་ནི་མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་བ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བར་བརྟེན་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེས་ན་འདིའི་གེགས་བྱེད་པའི་ཡུལ་ནི་དེ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ལ། རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་འགལ་བའི་ཐམས་ཅད་དུ་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདི་ལ་ཡང་གཞན་ལ་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བར་བརྟེན་པ་ཅི་ཞིག་ཡོད་དེ། དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་དོན་དེ་གཞན་གྱི་ཁ་ནས་རྣམ་པར་གཞག་ནས་ཡང་འགོག་པར་བྱེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གྲགས་པ་ཡང་འགལ་བའི་དོན་གྱི་དམ་བཅའ་བ་ལ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད
Chinese
如是说。以彼语自身相违于自义者，是与自语相违，譬如说比量非量是也。若非量，如何能为障碍？以彼力等故。设若于彼一者非量，则唯成已成，不能为障碍，以量能害非量故。若彼许故，于一切事物，论典是量，故唯能为损害耶？虽于许无差别，然如何一者是量及能为损害，而另一者非也？彼于此处云何耶？此是量性，即使是人所欲造作，亦是圆满也。设若与自语及论典相违有障碍之过失，如是，然由此唯于义生犹豫而已。此于显示无过失之宗亦相同故，如何是宗之过失耶？以彼语不生决定故，语之过失增益非也。若尔如何耶？谓凡语所应成办者，彼不成就故。立宗之语者，应显示自所思惟是可能，若如是，如量所损害则不可能一般，于一者聚集相违，亦非可能也。 于为他义之比量，语之过失是主要，义之过失则非，以不如实宣说义故，于语者转为责难故。设若与自语及所许相违诸者无有差别，若尔，于与先所许相违之境，有何差别耶？不依凭某些宗派，于何者不容许运用者，以是无则不生故，决定应依凭也。是故此之障碍之境即是彼，且于一切与自语相违者皆说也。于此亦有何者决定应依凭于他耶？以彼自身从他人之口安立彼义，又遮止故。名声亦能损害相违义之立宗。
English
Thus it is said. That which contradicts its own meaning by that very speech is contradictory to one's own words. For example, it is like saying that inference is not a valid means of knowledge. If it is not a valid means of knowledge, how can it be an obstacle? Because of its equal strength. If one of them is not a valid means of knowledge, then it only becomes established, but it does not become an obstacle, because a valid means of knowledge harms what is not a valid means of knowledge. If it is admitted that all things are valid scriptures, then it only harms them? Although there is no difference in admission, how can one be a valid means of knowledge and a source of harm, while the other is not? What is it here? This is the nature of validity, even if it is made by the desire of a person, it is also complete. If there is a fault of obstruction in contradicting one's own words and scriptures, then even so, it only causes doubt about the meaning. Since it is the same for showing an impeccable point of view, how is it a fault of the point of view? Because certainty does not arise from that word, the fault of the word is not an increase. If so, how is it? Because whatever is to be accomplished by the word is not accomplished. The words of the proposition should show that what one thinks is possible. If so, just as it is impossible to be harmed by a valid means of knowledge, it is also impossible to gather contradictions in one. In inference for the sake of others, the fault of words is the main thing, not the fault of meaning, because speaking of the meaning as it is not turns into a reproach for the speaker. If there is no difference between contradictions with one's own words and what is admitted, then what difference is there in the object that contradicts what was previously admitted? Whatever is not allowed to be used without relying on certain schools of thought must be relied upon without fail, because it is impossible without it. Therefore, the object of this obstacle is that, and it is said in all that contradicts one's own words. What is there here that must be relied upon by others? Because he himself establishes that meaning from the mouth of another, and also prevents it. Fame also harms the proposition of contradictory meaning.