Chinese
等语既出。如是之相，以不见成非有之倒义故，非唯是无。如是于怨敌相，以一切理皆不缘故，已说无性不成。是故，若于不顺品，不定成立，则于顺品生疑。 以士夫等说者，谓此士夫唯以现见，不能见一切物。云何士夫之见，由倒故尔，非物成无耶？是其义也。以现见识，不遍所知故，虽倒彼识，非物成无，是其义也。若倒何识，则物亦倒耶？谓说何等云云。谓以何智，于有事不谬，以有性故，何智乃能入一切事耶？是其义也。若倒彼智，能遍一切事，则物亦倒。故云，彼不见故，则无等语，说之则善，非说一切。是故，虽已成此物是有，然非理，以非可取故。云何耶？谓由自性、处、时，以劫之因故。谓以自性、处、时，劫及断故，如是连缀其文。于处时中，近处有时，由自性而劫，如鬼等。远处为处所劫。久远时为时所劫。设若前二有理，云何说时所劫，谓久远时耶？于此无过，谓唯于尔时，于彼等生为有体性者，就彼而说为有故。非就现在时而说。是故，语不
English
Etc. having been spoken. Such an appearance, because it is not seen as the opposite meaning of non-existence, is not only non-existent. Thus, in the aspect of an enemy, because all reasons are not related, it has already been said that non-nature is not established. Therefore, if the non-existence of reason is not established in the unfavorable category, then doubt arises in the favorable category. Those who speak with terms such as "person" mean that this person alone, with direct perception, cannot see all things. How can the sight of a person be reversed, so that things become non-existent? That is the meaning. Because the knowledge of direct perception does not pervade the knowable, even if that knowledge is reversed, things do not become non-existent, that is the meaning. If what knowledge is reversed, then things are also reversed? It is said, "What etc." It means, with what wisdom is there no error in existing things, because of existence, what wisdom can enter into all things? That is the meaning. If that wisdom, which can pervade all things, is reversed, then things are also reversed. Therefore, it is good to say that because he does not see it, there is no such thing, but not everything is said. Therefore, although it has been established that this thing exists, it is not reasonable, because it is not graspable. How is it? It is said that it is due to the cause of kalpas by nature, place, and time. It is said that it is due to the kalpas and severance by nature, place, and time, and the text is connected in this way. Among places and times, sometimes a nearby place is robbed by nature, such as ghosts. A distant place is robbed by place. A long time ago is robbed by time. If the first two are reasonable, how can it be said that time is robbed, meaning a long time ago? There is no fault in this, because it is said that only at that time, for those who are born as having the nature of those things, it is said to exist in relation to them. It is not said in relation to the present time. Therefore, speech is not
Chinese
因为不能确定所有具有虚假含义的事物都不存在，所以未完成的论证本身就令人怀疑。 因此，诸如此类的说法是为了建立这个论点：那些不具备全知能力的人所说的未完成的话语，对于非常隐蔽的事情不会欺骗吗？或者，另一个人所做的行为的话语，对于非常隐蔽的事情呢？对于另一个人来说是确定的，能够确定，但仅仅是不能确定，按照顺序组合。因为其他人已经这样承认了，所以这样说。对于已完成和未完成的事物，也应该将不欺骗和另一个人结合起来，这是其他人说的。如果因为看到一种知识行为的语言不欺骗，那么所有同类的语言都会变成不欺骗吗？因此，在某些情况下，会提到“像这样”等等，这也表明了具有剩余部分的推论是可以分析的。为了记住之前所展示的内容，会提到“在某些情况下”等等，在某些地方或时间，像这样，看到的事物以一种方式，也会从先前看到的方式转变为另一种方式，也就是会变成相反的。这就是例如会提到“像这样”等等的原因，由于组合事物的特殊性，例如用牛奶和蜂蜜等浸泡的特性，应该将酸浆果在某些地方先前存在的状态结合起来。像这样，正是因为没有看到像这样，例如，没有看到楝树的果实等变得甜，所以像印度楝树等的果实变得甜的那些，不是应该抛弃的。因此，即使没有看到知识行为的语言具有虚假含义，也不能抛弃。因此，未完成和变成虚假含义，也就是说，未完成和虚假含义之间没有看到矛盾。在这里，因为没有看到虚假含义的事物是未完成的，那么非见的量度也不存在吗？因此，没有看到本身会变成有害的吗？ 回答：提到“非见”等等，这种仅仅以没有看到为特征的非见
English
Because it is not possible to ascertain that all things with false meanings do not exist, the very argument of non-completion is doubtful of reversal. Therefore, such statements are made to establish this argument: Are the words of non-completion spoken by those who do not possess omniscience not deceptive regarding very hidden matters? Or, the words of actions done by another, regarding very hidden matters? For the other, it is certain, able to ascertain, but merely unable to ascertain, combine in order. Because others have already acknowledged it in this way, it is said in this way. For completed and non-completed things, one should also combine non-deception and the other, this is what others say. If because seeing that one act of knowledge speech is not deceptive, then all similar kinds of speech will become non-deceptive? Therefore, in some cases, it is mentioned "like this" etc., which also indicates that inference with remaining parts can be analyzed. To remember what was previously shown, it is mentioned "in some cases" etc., in some places or times, like this, things seen in one way, will also transform from the previously seen way into another way, that is, will become the opposite. This is why, for example, it is mentioned "like this" etc., due to the particularity of combined things, such as the characteristics of being soaked with milk and honey etc., one should combine the state of amla berries previously existing in some places. Like this, precisely because not seeing like this, for example, not seeing neem fruits etc. becoming sweet, so those fruits of Indian lilac etc. becoming sweet are not to be abandoned. Therefore, even if not seeing that acts of knowledge speech have false meanings, one cannot abandon. Therefore, non-completion and becoming false meaning, that is, there is no contradiction seen between non-completion and false meaning. Here, because not seeing that things with false meanings are non-completed, then does the measure of non-seeing also not exist? Therefore, will not seeing itself become harmful? Answer: "Non-seeing" etc. is mentioned, this non-seeing characterized merely by not seeing
Chinese
因为是不显现的自性，不显现的体性的意义不是能立，如前已述。能立已述的相，也认为此中没有。因为无作性本身没有从相违义本身中遣除的量，因此稍微相违义的所有那些，都是非人所作，因为没有这样的决定，能立和所立的相违品，与相违义本身和所作性等没有周遍关系。这样，因为无作性本身没有决定从相违义本身中遣除，因此对遣除本身产生怀疑。对理由产生怀疑的体性不是能使理解。这样，如果随同、遣除，即自己的所立的理由周遍，或者从不相符的方面遣除，理由存在于所立的法上，这是所谓的同品遍在性之义。这三个法式，如果以量之识成立，就是能立。以什么样的方式成立呢？那就是具有决定果，即对于谁来说，具有那三个法式的决定的果，这样连接词语。那时，那三个法式就是成立所立时的能立。如是，学派正量部也说，任何对于二者是决定的，对于立论者和反驳者是决定的意义进行陈述，那才是能立或能破。其中，陈述具有理由之相的意义是能立。陈述具有未成立等之相，因为立论者以能破的想法进行陈述，就是能破，这样连接。对于任何陈述，名声和怀疑都不是，即对于立论者和反驳者中的任何一方是名声，或者对于二者或任何一方产生怀疑，任何陈述这种声音，那不是能立，也不是能破。为什么呢？
English
Because it is of the nature of non-manifestation, the meaning of the nature of non-manifestation is not an establisher, as previously stated. The characteristic of what has already been stated as an establisher is also considered not to exist here. Because non-doing itself does not have a valid cognition that eliminates it from the meaning of contradiction itself, therefore, all those that are slightly contradictory are not made by humans, because there is no such certainty, the contradictory aspects of what is to be established and the establisher do not pervasively relate to the meaning of contradiction itself and the nature of being made, etc. Thus, because non-doing itself is not certain to eliminate from the meaning of contradiction itself, there is doubt about the elimination itself. The nature of doubting the reason is not what causes understanding. Thus, if the concomitance or elimination, that is, the reason of one's own thesis is pervasive, or eliminates from the dissimilar side, the reason exists on the subject of the thesis, this is the meaning of what is called the property of the subject. Those three aspects, if established by valid cognition, are the establisher. In what way are they established? That is, it has a definite result, that is, for whomsoever has the definite result of those three aspects, thus connecting the words. At that time, those three aspects become the establisher at the time of establishing the thesis. Thus, the teacher Dignāga also said, whatever is definite for both, stating the meaning that is definite for the proponent and the opponent, that alone is the establisher or the refuter. Among them, stating the meaning that has the characteristic of reason is the establisher. Stating the characteristic of having not been established, etc., because the proponent states with the intention of refuting, is the refuter, thus connecting. For any statement, fame and doubt are not, that is, for either the proponent or the opponent it is fame, or for either or both there is doubt, any sound that states this, that is not the establisher, nor is it the refuter. Why?