Chinese
说瓶子是具有法性的，瓶子本身就是法，这是合理的。如果问，那么这个又如何变成法和有法性的事物呢？确实如此，但是因为看到它与外在的事物以及与此相异的事物不同。由于这种见解，执着于多种法的分别念，自然而然地产生错觉，停留在自己的显现中，将这个和那个不同的法，如同事物的法一样地安立。凭借这种显现的力量，才会有法或有法性这样的名称，因此对它们有所依赖。对于瓶子和兔角等，则没有那样的依赖，因此瓶子不是有法性的，不存在的也不是它的总相。因为如此这般地显示了种姓自性不存在，所以是无自性的，即种姓自性不存在。然而，本体，即依靠自性，从任何事物中返回，依靠与此不同的事物，即使已经确定了不同的自性。在名言的意义上：无自性而假立种姓，由语词完全显示。是怎样的呢？具有进入差别的意义。那个也是那个，也是差别，因此是对那个差别而言的。为了能够区分那个和那个，由具有辨别力的人们所作。种姓显现为那个的本体，或者说，任何显现为稍微本体的东西，或者说，在意义上执着于那个种姓。通过本体显现的方式，对外境执着为一体，那是错觉。是怎样的呢？无始时来的见惯串习之变现。无始时来具有互相执着为不同的状态，见惯串习，那个是其他的，这就是错觉，这个名称是虚妄的意义。为了显示，安立具有遣除他者的特征的总相，那也是总相的无本体性。事物的从一等等返回到他者的总相，具有从他者返回的特征。安立遣除他者的本体性。声音由此确定什么。从舍弃不希望的角度进入的方
English
It is reasonable to say that a pot is a dharma-possessor and that the pot itself is the dharma. If you ask, how does this also become a dharma and a dharma-possessor? It is true, but it is based on seeing that it is different from external things and from what is different from them. Because of this view, the discriminating mind, which is attached to many dharmas, naturally becomes deluded, remains in its own appearance, and establishes this and that different dharma as if it were the dharma of things. Because of the power of this appearance, the term 'dharma' or 'dharma-possessor' is used, so there is dependence on them. For pots and rabbit horns, there is no such dependence, so the pot is not a dharma-possessor, and what does not exist is not its generality. Because it is shown that lineage nature does not exist in this way, it is without essence, that is, lineage nature does not exist. However, the essence, that is, relying on the natures, returning from any thing, relying on what is different from it, even if different natures have been determined. In the meaning of terms: lineage is imputed to what is without essence, and is fully shown by words. What is it like? It has the meaning of entering into difference. That is also that, and it is also difference, so it is for that difference. In order to be able to distinguish that and that, it is done by those who have discernment. Lineage appears as the essence of that, or whatever appears as a slight essence, or, in meaning, clings to that lineage. Through the way of essence appearance, clinging to external objects as one, that is delusion. What is it like? The manifestation of habitual practice of seeing from beginningless time. From beginningless time, having a state of clinging to each other as different, habitual practice of seeing, that is other, this is delusion, this term has a false meaning. In order to show that, establishing the generality that has the characteristic of eliminating others, that is also the non-essentiality of the generality. The generality of things returning from one etc. to others, having the characteristic of returning from others. Establishing the essentiality of eliminating others. What is determined by this sound. The direction of entering from the point of abandoning what is not desired.
Chinese
因此，当从彼处区分其他事物时，为了通过作为术语的词语来了解这个和那个的差别，（词语的）表达是极好的结合。如果排除他者，那它的自性会是什么呢？它是不存在丝毫自性的。任何在共相的智慧中，由对相互差别的事物产生错觉而生起的（智慧），由于追随自己的显现，在执持为无差别时，其本质是相同的，具有事物之相的追随是错觉的本质。什么是怎样的呢？对于无自性者而言，虽然以显现的方式成为了无自性，但却错以为是它的意义，那个具有意义之相的，如果我们认为它是共相，那么，因为这种错觉的本质本身就是虚假的缘故，这也是不合理的。错觉本身从何而来呢？因为它也显现为共相的缘故。因为在无差别中，事物也各自显现为差别之故。正因为如此，才说具有事物之相者，是错以为事物。 此外，共相的智慧不是具有自性的，而是无自性的。为什么呢？因为是虚假的缘故，并且它的自性不是那个，因为它不是被视为那种自性的所依之故。因为事物本身不存在的缘故。既然它的自性本身就是错觉，即使自己的显现没有意义，但如果执着于事物，那么它本身也不会变成真实事物的自性，因此也是无自性的。如果是那样，那么从他者中分离的自性是共相吗？凡是认为智慧的显现是共相的，这两者在胜义中都不存在丝毫自性。正因为如此，那个共相，因为没有自性，所以不是所表达的对象。从事物来说，是同一和异体。对于没有任何自性的事物，依赖于事物的同一和异体的术语从何而来？如果具有自性，那么就不是超越同一和异体。虽然会那样变化，但如果仅仅从词语中，想要事物，那么瓶子的共相就会变成自己的近取因，从色等中变成同一和异
English
Therefore, when distinguishing other things from that, in order to understand the differences between this and that through the words used as terms, the expression (of words) is an excellent combination. If otherness is eliminated, what would its essence be? It does not possess even a little bit of self-nature. Whatever arises in the wisdom of generality, born from the illusion of mutually different things, because it follows its own appearance, when holding it as undifferentiated, its essence is the same, and the following of the appearance of things is the essence of illusion. What is it like? For those without self-nature, although it has become without self-nature in the way it appears, it is mistaken for its meaning, that which has the appearance of meaning, if we think it is a generality, then, because the essence of this illusion itself is false, this is also unreasonable. Where does the illusion itself come from? Because it also appears as a generality. Because in non-difference, things also appear separately as differences. Precisely because of this, it is said that one who has the appearance of things is mistaken for things. Furthermore, the wisdom of generality is not something with essence, but is without self-nature. Why? Because it is false, and its essence is not that, because it is not the basis for being regarded as that kind of essence. Because the thing itself does not exist. Since its essence itself is an illusion, even if one's own appearance has no meaning, if one clings to things, then it itself will not become the self-nature of a real thing, therefore it is also without self-nature. If that is the case, is the self-nature that is separated from others a generality? Whatever considers the appearance of wisdom to be a generality, neither of these exists even a little bit of self-nature in the ultimate sense. Precisely because of this, that generality, because it has no self-nature, is not the object to be expressed. From the perspective of things, it is the same and different. For things that have no self-nature at all, where do the terms of sameness and difference that depend on things come from? If it has self-nature, then it is not beyond sameness and difference. Although it will change in that way, if one wants things only from words, then the generality of the pot will become its own proximate cause, and from form etc. it will become the same and different.