Chinese
如果问怎样转变，因此说了“像那样不同”等等。因为说了许多像那样不同的、舍弃其他差别的法，所以使词不同、所要证成的事物不同、证成的方式不同。应当这样连起来。对于哪些所显示的，以及对于那些与此相违背的事物，凭借那些法显现的差别，即安住在分别念之心的法之自性中显现的差别，这是总结性的词语。为什么要做呢？因此说了“它的自性”等等，为了仅仅证悟相违背的事物的自性，因为它们是通过传承与事物相关联的缘故。为了容易理解恰当的意义，用偈颂来概括：执持自性分别念。 说了“像那样”等等，即体验事物自性之后产生的分别念之心。它的意义相似，就像由于特别执着而成为事物的对境一样。与那些不具有它的果实的事物不同，那是它的究竟，因为通过体验它的力量而产生，并且为了获得相违背的事物，所以称为它的究竟。像那样的心，它的体性是什么呢？即意义的相状是什么，因为使显现和常恒的事物成为一体，所以就像外境一样。因为在清晰的同类事物中显现为相同，所以就像一个一样。显现为与不同类的事物相违背一样，但并不是真正的相违背。显现在心上的体性，那不是真如。为什么呢？因为没有考察的支分，只有能起作用才是考察的支分。因此说，因为没有考察的支分，所以不能起作用。因为什么原因显现在心上的体性不是真如，因此它的对境的名称仅仅适用于错误的意义，因此说了“存在于知识中的那些事物”等等。所谓存在于知识中，即显现在分别念之心上，也就是存在于知识中的那些事物，像这样颠倒。
English
If asked how it transforms, therefore it is said "like that different" and so on. Because many such different dharmas that abandon other distinctions are spoken of, it makes the words different, the things to be proven different, and the ways of proving different. It should be connected like this. For those that are shown, and for those things that are contrary to this, by those distinctions of the appearance of dharma, that is, the distinctions that appear in the nature of the dharma residing in the mind of discrimination, this is a summary word. Why do you do it? Therefore it is said "its own nature" and so on, in order to only realize the own nature of the contradictory things, because they are related to things through tradition. In order to easily grasp the appropriate meaning, a verse is used to summarize: Holding the nature of discriminating mind. It says "like that" and so on, that is, the discriminating mind that arises after experiencing the nature of things. Its meaning is similar, just as it becomes the object of things due to special attachment. Different from those things that do not have its fruit, that is its ultimate, because it arises through the power of experiencing it, and in order to obtain contradictory things, it is called its ultimate. What is the nature of such a mind? That is, what is the aspect of meaning, because it makes the appearance and the constant things into one, so it is like an external object. Because it appears the same in clear homogeneous things, it is like one. It appears to be contrary to heterogeneous things, but it is not really contrary. The nature that appears in the mind, that is not suchness. Why? Because there is no branch of investigation, only the ability to function is the branch of investigation. Therefore, it is said that because there is no branch of investigation, it cannot function. For what reason is the nature that appears in the mind not suchness, therefore the name of its object only applies to the meaning of error, therefore it is said "those things that exist in knowledge" and so on. What is said to exist in knowledge, that is, what appears in the mind of discrimination, that is, those things that exist in knowledge, are reversed like this.
Chinese
，具有与本质相反的本质。例如，具有与非乌 উৎপল（梵文，utpala，汉语：青莲花）相反的本质，即是乌 উৎপল（梵文，utpala，汉语：青莲花）的意义。因此，所谓的“从其他事物中分离出来的本质的乌 উৎপল（梵文，utpala，汉语：青莲花）本身”，看起来似乎与它没有区别，但实际上并非如此，因为显现在意识中的本质是虚假的。这解释了普遍概念的原因。所谓的“它也显现为与其他事物分离”，指的是显现在意识中的、具有与其他事物分离的本质的那些事物，也显现为与其他不同种类的事物分离。例如，乌 উৎপল（梵文，utpala，汉语：青莲花）的那些特征本身，看起来就像是从非蓝色中分离出来的一样。因此，由于两种分离紧密相连，显现为一个意义，所以解释了共同基础的种子。它通过“它本身从那”等等来显示。其中的“在那”指的是，将显现在意识中的那些事物与广泛使用的术语联系起来。什么样的特征呢？具有错误的意义。什么成为了原因呢？提到了“普遍和”等等。通过普遍对象的意识和共同基础对象的意识，以及通过言语，普遍行为的对象使普遍概念得以扩展，而另一个则使共同基础的概念得以扩展。虽然这里的概念本质上只是声音和意识，但由于它依赖于行动及其伴随物，并且想要表达意识和声音所执行的本质，因此，仅仅通过这两者来表达充分显示意义的特征的行为，就被认为是概念本身，因此没有错误。例如，意识既是有效的认知，也是结果本身。所有事物的那些，指的是事物自身特征的术语，即意识和言语的特征，依赖于彼此不存在且彼此区分的事物，因为它们是通过体验相反的事物而产生的。因此，所谓的“依赖于彼此不存在”的概念，被称为具有排除其他事物的对象，但不是因为它们持有相反的自身特征。该概念也是发现事物和获得事物的依据。并非所有事物都是如此，但概念存在于
English
, possessing an essence that is the opposite of its nature. For example, having the essence of being the opposite of non-utpala is like the meaning of utpala itself. Therefore, the so-called "essence of utpala itself that is distinct from others" appears as if it is not different, but in reality, it is not, because the essence that appears in the mind is false. This explains the reason for general terms. The so-called "it also appears as being distinct from others" refers to those things that appear in the mind, having the essence of being distinct from others, also appearing as being distinct from other dissimilar kinds. For example, those characteristics of utpala themselves appear as being distinct from non-blue. Therefore, since two distinctions are closely connected, appearing as one meaning, the seed of the common basis is explained. It is shown by "it itself from that" and so on. The "in that" refers to connecting those things that appear in the mind with terms that are widely used. What kind of characteristics? Having the meaning of error. What became the cause? "General and" and so on are mentioned. Through the consciousness of general objects and the consciousness of objects with a common basis, and through speech, the object of general behavior expands general terms, while the other expands the terms of the common basis itself. Although terms here are essentially just sound and consciousness, because they rely on action and its accompaniments, and want to express the essence performed by consciousness and sound, therefore, the act of fully showing the meaning through just those two is considered to be the term itself, so there is no fault. For example, consciousness is both valid cognition and the result itself. All those of things, refers to the terms of the characteristics of things themselves, the characteristics of consciousness and speech, relying on what is mutually non-existent and mutually distinguishing, because they arise through experiencing opposite things. Therefore, the so-called "terms that rely on mutual non-existence" are called having the object of excluding others, but not because they hold the opposite self-characteristics. That term is also the basis for finding things and obtaining things. Not all things are so, but the term exists in what
Tibetan
རྒྱུད་པས་དངོས་པོ་དེ་ལྟ་བུ་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡོད་པའོ། །དཔེར་བརྗོད་པ། རྗེས་དཔག་ཇི་སྐད་བཤད་ཇི་བཞིན། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྨོས་ཏེ། ཇི་བཞིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཇི་སྐད་བཤད་པ་ལྟ་བུ་སྟེ། སྔར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ཅན་བཤད་པ་ལྟ་བུ་ཡིན་ནོ། །རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ཅན་དང་ཅིག་ཤོས་ནི་རང་ལ་སྣང་བའི་དོན་དུ་ལྷག་པར་ཞེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་འཁྲུལ་པར་སྨྲ་ཡང་གཞན་བརྟེན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ལ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལ་ནི་རྒྱུད་ལས་ཀྱང་དངོས་པོ་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་མེད་པ་དེ་དངོས་པོ་ནི་མི་བརྟེན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །མར་མེའི་འོད་ལ་ནོར་བུ་བཞིན། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་ནོར་བུའི་འོད་ལ་ནོར་བུའི་བློ་འཁྲུལ་པ་ལྟར་མར་མེའི་འོད་ལ་ཡང་དེ་དང་འདྲ་དེ་འཁྲུལ་པ་ཉིད་དུ་མཚུངས་མོད་ཀྱི་ནོར་བུའི་འོད་ནོར་བུ་ཉིད་དུ་གཟུང་བ་ནི་ནོར་བུ་རྙེད་པར་བྱ་བ་རྟོག་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་མར་མེའི་འོད་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་དང་འདྲ་བར་བརྟེན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པའི་ཡང་ཐོབ་པར་བྱ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །སྤྱིའི་ཐ་སྙད་ཀྱི་ས་བོན་བསྟན་པ་དེ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྨོས་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་སྒྲ་ནི་ཚིག་གི་ཕྲད་དམ། གསལ་བ་དེ་དག་ལས་འབྲས་བུ་གཅིག་པ་ཅན་གྱི་གསལ་བ་རྣམས་མི་གསལ་བའམ། སྤྱི་དང་གཞི་མཐུན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དེ་དག་ལས་རེ་ཞིག་སྤྱིའི་ཐ་སྙད་ཀྱི་ས་བོན་བརྗོད་དོ་ཞེས་ངེས་པར་གཟུང་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དུ་མའང་འབྲས་བུ་གཅིག་པ་ཅན་ནི་དཔེར་ན་བུམ་པའི་ཁྱད་པར་རྣམས་ཆུ་བཅུ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་འབྲས་བུ་གཅིག་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །ཤེས་པ་དང་བརྗོད་པ་གང་དག་ལ་ རྟེན་དེའི་འབྲས་ཅན་མིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འབྲས་བུ་དེ་ལྟ་བུ་མི་བྱེད་པ་གང་དག་ཡིན་པ་དེ་དག་ལས་གཞན་པ་ལྡོག་པ་དེ་ཡོད་པ་དེ་དག་གི་དངོས་པོ་དུ་མ་ཡིན་ཡང་གཅིག་ཉིད། ཐ་སྙད་རབ་ཏུ་འཇུག་པར་བྱེད་སྤྱིའི་ཐ་སྙད་ཐོབ་པར་བྱེད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །བློ་ལ་སྣང་བའི་དོན་ཁོ་ན་ལ་དེ་ལྟར་རྒྱས་པར་བྱེད་དེ། སྣང་བ་དང་རྣམ་པར་བརྟག་པར་བྱ་བ་དག་གཅིག་ཏུ་བྱས་ནས་དུ་མ་ཡིན་ཡང་གཅིག་བྱེད་པ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཏུ་ཟད་དོ། །དེ་བཞིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་སྤྱི་འདས་མ་ཐག་པ་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་སོ། །གཅིག་ཀྱང་དུ་མ་བྱེད་པ་ནི་དཔེར་ན་བུམ་པས་མིག་གི་རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་དང༌། ཆུ་ཆུ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་འབྲས་བུ་བྱེད་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །དེའི་དངོས་ཡོངས་སུ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་འབྲས་བུ་དུ་མ་བྱེད་
Chinese
相续与如是事物有关联。举例说明：如所说之现量，正如所说。正如，就像先前所说的有分别的现量一样。有分别的现量和另一种现量，因为特别执着于显现给自己的事物，所以说是错误的，但对于依他起等的分别念则不然。因为在相续中，与事物没有关联的事物，其自性是不依赖他者的。如灯光中的珍宝。就像珍宝的光芒使人误以为是珍宝一样，灯光也同样会使人产生同样的错觉，但将珍宝的光芒视为珍宝本身，是为了获得珍宝而产生的念头，而灯光则不然。与此类似，对于依赖他者等的分别念，也是无法获得的，这就是它的含义。为了说明共同名言的种子，提到了“于彼”等。其中，“于彼”一词是词的连词吗？在那些清晰的事物中，对于结果相同的事物，不清晰，或者对于共同和基础相同的事物等，暂时说一下共同名言的种子，这是需要明确把握的。许多结果相同的事物，例如瓶子的各种特性，如盛水等，都是相同的结果。对于哪些知识和言说 不是其所依之果，也就是说，哪些不是产生这种结果的，从那些事物中，其他相反的事物是存在的，那些事物虽然是多种，但实际上是一个。能够很好地运用名称，获得共同的名称，这就是它的含义。只是在心中显现的事物上，才如此扩展，将显现和需要辨别的事物合二为一，虽然是多种，但说成是一个，仅此而已。如是，是相对于刚刚过去的共同而言的。一个也不产生多个，例如瓶子产生眼识，以及盛水等结果。为了完全显示它的事物，也就是说，不产生多个结果
English
The continuum is related to such things. For example: Inference is as stated, just as it is said. Just as, like the previously stated conceptual inference. Conceptual inference and another, because of particularly clinging to the meaning that appears to oneself, are said to be mistaken, but not for the conceptualizations of other-dependent phenomena and so on. Because in the continuum, the thing that is not related to the object, its nature is not dependent on others. Like a jewel in the light of a lamp. Just as the light of a jewel makes one mistakenly think it is a jewel, the light of a lamp will also cause the same illusion, but taking the light of a jewel as the jewel itself is a thought generated to obtain the jewel, but not the light of a lamp. Similarly, the conceptualizations of dependent phenomena and so on are also unattainable, that is its meaning. To explain the seed of common terms, "to that" etc. are mentioned. Among them, is the word "to that" a conjunction of words? Among those clear things, for things with the same result, unclear, or for things with common and same basis, etc., for the time being, let's talk about the seed of common terms, this needs to be clearly grasped. Many things with the same result, such as the various characteristics of a pot, such as holding water, etc., are the same result. For which knowledge and speech are not the result of that which is relied upon, that is, which are not producing such a result, from those things, other opposite things exist, those things, although many, are actually one. Being able to use names well, obtaining common names, that is its meaning. It is only on the things that appear in the mind that it is so expanded, uniting the appearance and the things to be distinguished, although many, but saying it is one, that's all. Thus, it is relative to the common that has just passed. One does not produce many, for example, a pot produces eye consciousness, and results such as holding water. In order to fully show its thing, that is, not producing many results