Chinese
已經完成了。如果不是適當的符號，因為沒有能力，所以適當本身就是關係，那樣的話。因此，為什麼說聲音是關係呢？就像原因和結果的適當性一樣，聲音的能力的本質就是適當性。如果意義是其他的，那麼說聲音的關係有什麼用呢？如果說是要幫助適當性，那是不對的，因為恆常本身是沒有卓越性的。而且，因為會變得非常過分，所以幫助沒有成立。為什麼不認為適當性在意義上本質上就是適當性呢？然而，符號如何是聲音和意義的關係呢？因為是人們所使用的。對於不混合的事物和已成立的事物來說，沒有任何關係，因為會變得太過分，而且沒有依賴性。想要表達意義的差別，因為被拋出的詞語依賴於顯現的意義，從這個知道這個的自己的原因。智慧的本質和語言的形式的知識是產生和被產生的本質的關係，因此，從聲音中理解是不可或缺的。使之清晰的是符號，因為從那裡成立了知道的關係，並且為了使關係清晰。那本身不是關係。另一個本身是恆常的關係是錯誤的。因此，如果詞語確定在一個意義上，就不會理解其他的意義。那樣的關係不可能理解沒有關係的意義，因為那會變得沒有意義。由於慾望的影響，也看到所有被符號化的事物都顯現一切。如果與多種意義有明顯的關係，就有可能顯現矛盾。如果認為所見沒有變成矛盾，那麼一切都是一切的表達。那樣的話，一切就不是一切的證明，因為原因和結果是不混亂的。從那裡分別確定，對於想要明顯表達的意義，作為證明者，以及所有證明和被證明的共同的聲
English
It is already done. If it is not a suitable sign, because there is no ability, then suitability itself is the relationship, like that. Therefore, why should sound be considered a relationship? Just as the suitability of cause and effect, the essence of the power of sound is suitability. If the meaning is different, then what is the use of speaking of the relationship of sound? If it is said to aid suitability, that is not correct, because permanence itself is without excellence. Moreover, because it would become too extreme, the aid is not established. Why not consider suitability to be inherently suitable in meaning? However, how is a sign the relationship between sound and meaning? Because it is used by people. For unmixed things and established things, there is no relationship, because it would become too extreme and there is no dependence. Wanting to express the difference in meaning, because the thrown word relies on the manifested meaning, knowing this from this, its own cause. The essence of wisdom and the knowledge of the form of language are the relationship of the essence of producing and being produced, therefore, understanding from sound is indispensable. What makes it clear is the sign, because from there the relationship of knowing is established, and in order to make the relationship clear. That itself is not the relationship. Another itself is a permanent relationship is wrong. Therefore, if words are fixed on one meaning, other meanings will not be understood. That kind of relationship cannot understand a meaning that has no relationship, because that would become meaningless. Due to the influence of desire, it is also seen that all symbolized things manifest everything. If there is a clear relationship with multiple meanings, it is possible to reveal contradictions. If it is thought that what is seen has not become a contradiction, then everything is the expression of everything. In that case, everything is not the proof of everything, because cause and effect are not confused. From there, separately determining, for the meaning that is desired to be clearly expressed, as the prover, and the common voice of all proving and being proven.
Chinese
那么，说“是由能明了所欲之义而作”这句话是从何而来的呢？当从人身上见到不确定的时候，人所未作之事的遍计也变得无意义。无论如何，为了证悟不寻求意义，所以将人作为因由而散乱是显而易见的。那么，人中的哪一种会变得散乱地与某些事物相结合呢？如果这种事物与一切事物都是共通的，那么有些人会确定这些事物，因为他们并不完全了解这些事物本身。如果通过知识的自性来确定，那么就会变得不依赖于教法，并且不会通过其他方式来指示，也不会以讲述的方式来分别。如果能够分别，那么由于不会欺骗指示者的意愿，人所未作之事本身就会变得毫无意义。各种不同的关联也是，为了进行区分而陈述理由。外境不是声音的自性，声音也不是诸义的自性，如果无有差别的自性，那么由谁来使差别的情况，也像已作和无常一样，如果不相同，就不会产生。这些声音也是，不是由想要表达而产生的，也不是由想要表达无生而需要阐明的事物，并且不依赖于意义。因此，如何能随顺于必须分别确立的事物而进行确立呢？因为不依赖，所以不是确立者。由于人没有好好地做，所以在各种方面都会变得无意义。如果承认好好地做了，那么这就像大象洗澡一样。这被称为总结的偈颂。此外，声音和意义的关联是常还是无常呢？如果是无常，是人所欲求的而具有作用，还是不具有作用呢？如果不是依赖于人本身，那么就不会像人的想法那样，在境等事物上显示出来，因为不依赖于意愿，所以也像山等一样，在某些方面也是不合适的。这同样也是常法上的过失。
English
Then, from where does the statement "it is made by clarifying the meaning of what is desired" come from? When uncertainty is seen from a person, the complete imputation of what is not done by a person also becomes meaningless. In any case, in order to realize without seeking meaning, it is clear that scattering people as a cause is obvious. Then, which kind of people will become scattered and combined with certain things? If this thing is common to all things, then some people will determine these things, because they do not fully understand these things themselves. If it is determined by the nature of knowledge, then it will become independent of the teachings, and it will not be indicated by other means, nor will it be distinguished in the way of telling. If one is able to distinguish, then because one will not deceive the wishes of the indicator, what is not done by a person will become meaningless in itself. The various different connections are also, reasons are stated in order to distinguish. The external object is not the nature of sound, and sound is not the nature of meanings. If there is no difference in nature, then who will make the difference in situation, also like what has been done and impermanent, if they are not the same, they will not arise. These sounds are also, not produced by wanting to express, nor by things that need to be clarified by wanting to express the unborn, and do not depend on meaning. Therefore, how can one follow what must be established separately and establish it? Because it is not dependent, it is not the establisher. Because people have not done well, it will become meaningless in various aspects. If one admits that it has been done well, then this is like an elephant bathing. This is called the concluding verse. Furthermore, is the connection between sound and meaning permanent or impermanent? If it is impermanent, is it what people desire and has a function, or does it not have a function? If it is not dependent on the person himself, then it will not appear on objects and so on as the person's thoughts are, because it is not dependent on wishes, so it is also like mountains and so on, and it is also inappropriate in some aspects. This is also a fault on the permanent dharma.
Chinese
是也。因为它的常性本质不可能变为其他。所有情况下也相同，因为对于欲求没有分别的确定性。因为从那之中对差别的理解不会改变，所以会和之前一样成为过失。即使是通过欲求而进入，因为是人所造作的缘故，也会成为错谬的怀疑之处。另外，因为具有关联的事物都是无常的缘故，对于关联来说，不存在常有的情况。另外，如果具有所依是关联，那么对于没有依赖的事物来说，那些关联本身是不可能的缘故。那个所依也是无常的，因为当它坏灭时，关联也会坏灭。如果不是那样，就不会坏灭。因此，不是常有的。也要阐述它的所依之义，因为对于常有来说，不存在可以施加利益的情况。不施加利益也不是所依。如果说是由于理应阐述种类，所以没有过失，那么不是的，因为阐述它没有必要，通过这样说已经考察完毕了。因为在所有情况下都没有种类，所以在明确阐述的随欲而成的那些事物中是不可能的，并且在所有情况下阐述种类时，因为不可能舍弃其他差别而进入的缘故。因此，随之而行和相违的事物的存在和不存在就是关联。因此，事物和声音的此，由人以智慧善作。依靠那些存在和不存在，即使已经确定不混杂，但由于习惯于名言，所以在人看来似乎是混杂的缘故，事物的混杂是人所造作的。另外，如果所依坏灭，关联也会坏灭，那么那个声音也和之前不存在的事物没有关联，因为具有关联的事物本身不存在的缘故，并且生起和变化的非关联的事物，将会成为不可言说之物，因为关联没有存在的缘故。对于此，如果不能理解和意义一同生起，那么对于声音来说，其自性，不适合完全颠倒。如果认为关联坏灭不会在其他事物上不存在，或者事物不会成为不可言说之物。如果生起和出现的事物具有关联而生起
English
Yes. Because its permanent essence cannot be transformed into something else. It is the same in all cases, because there is no separate certainty for desire. Because the understanding of the difference from that does not change, it will become a fault as before. Even if entering through desire, because it is made by a person, it will become a place of doubt for error. Furthermore, because things with connections are impermanent, there is no permanence for connections. Also, if having a basis is a connection, then for things without dependence, those connections themselves are impossible. That basis is also impermanent, because when it is destroyed, the connection will also be destroyed. If it is not so, it will not be destroyed. Therefore, it is not permanent. The meaning of its basis should also be explained, because there is no way to benefit the permanent. Not giving benefit is also not a basis. If it is said that there is no fault because it is necessary to explain the kind, then it is not so, because there is no need to explain it, and it has been examined by saying this. Because there is no kind in all cases, it is impossible for those things that are clearly stated to be arbitrary, and when the kind is stated in all ways, it is impossible to enter without abandoning other differences. Therefore, the existence and non-existence of things that follow and contradict it are connections. Therefore, this of things and sounds, is well made by people with wisdom. Relying on those existence and non-existence, even if it has been determined not to be mixed, but because of the habit of terminology, it seems to be mixed in people, so the mixing of things is made by people. Furthermore, if the basis is destroyed, the connection will also be destroyed, then that sound is also not connected with things that did not exist before, because the things with connections themselves do not exist, and things that arise and change that are not connected will become unspeakable, because the connection does not exist. For this, if it is not possible to understand arising together with meaning, then for sounds, their nature, it is not appropriate to completely reverse. If it is thought that the destruction of connection will not be non-existent in other things, or that things will not become unspeakable. If the thing that arises and appears has a connection and arises