English
Isn't it? Therefore, this non-apprehension is because one realizes it oneself through direct perception. It is said so. Since non-apprehension is also non-existent, do you also want direct perception with a non-existent object? Therefore, in any case, we have mentioned non-apprehension and so on, because it takes that non-existence as its object, so it is not that non-apprehension is established by the valid means of direct perception. This is what is drawn from within. Thus, the other world and so on, which by nature has kalpas, is because it is not mixed with certain things and consciousness. Merely understanding the same state of any object, understanding that there is no other world, this is the meaning of summarizing. Because it also appears in other ways, it means that things exist, and also because of the kalpas of objects and so on, the reversal of direct perception also appears. If it is said that there is no confusion here, this is said after admitting it. Saying "etc." refers to saying and so on. The "ཤ་པ་" of a tree is a sign of knowing the tree. Stable water is knowing the support. Because it has the fruit of validity, it is said to be valid. Commentary on the Explanation of Valid Cognition, fifty-first chapter. If some say: Because of confusion, there is no reliability. It means that because it is amla, amla is astringent, like the amla that has been tasted. This is confusion, because by squeezing milk and so on, in some cases, the fruit of amla is also seen to be sweet. Similarly, for others, confusion may also occur due to different states, objects, and times. It is said thus: Because states, objects, and times are different, if there are different abilities, then inferring things by inference, it is difficult to obtain understanding. In that and that function, the thing has a definite ability, and by the connection of the difference of things, the individual abilities will be destroyed. It is said thus. Where does that exist, it means that it exists in the place of non-deception, having its nature and the characteristics arising from it. Therefore, merely reversing is not a sign. Then what
Chinese
是什么呢？就是显示“是其他的对境”的意思。就像“如果存在其他的可见之因”这句话，就显示了眼等的作用。那些对它如何能起作用呢？如果它能完全断除在那里的各种状态等，那么，由于瓶子等是应被否定的，所以会显示出远离瓶子等的处所等不是对境，而是由于作用而成为非对境。就像所说的“自性非对境等”，说了“等”字，就包括了周遍和因非对境。周遍是因为是周遍的自性。周遍非对境也由“具有那个自性非对境”来表示。所谓“随其应理”，瓶子的自性等是具有自性非对境的，而树木等是具有周遍非对境的，烟等是具有因非对境的，是这个意思。所谓“如果承认那个”，就是如果承认如前所说的具有特征的关系。所谓“在那样的”，就是在如前所说的具有特征的关系上。所谓“能够显示”，就是如前所说的具有特征的关系的情况。所谓“在这里”等等，在第一品中已经讲过，而且下面也会讲。如果也成立三种理的关系，即使那样，也说了“某些理”，是因为取决于例子的差别。像那样，所谓“那个”等等，就是凡是能被根识所见，而不能被不见者所取的东西。所谓“对这个没有决定”，就是说，不能决定这些根识在其他时候也不取，因为对于某些由串习而产生明亮之物的人来说，存在着被取的情况，而且没有能损害的量。所谓“因为对于应取之物来说，没有超出根识的”，意思是说，相对于这个人来说，对于那个应取之物来说，没有超出根识的。
English
What is it? It means to show that "it is another object." Just like the phrase "If there is another cause of seeing," this shows the function of the eye and so on. How can those act on it? If it can completely eliminate the various states and so on that are there, then, since the pot and so on are to be negated, it will show that the place and so on that are away from the pot and so on are not objects, but become non-objects due to the function. Just like what is said, "self-nature non-object, etc.," the word "etc." includes pervasiveness and cause non-object. Pervasiveness is because it is the nature of pervasiveness. Pervasive non-object is also expressed by "having that self-nature non-object." The so-called "according to what is appropriate," the self-nature of the pot and so on is having self-nature non-object, while trees and so on are having pervasive non-object, and smoke and so on are having cause non-object, that is the meaning. The so-called "if you admit that," is if you admit the relationship with the characteristics as mentioned before. The so-called "in that kind of," is in the relationship with the characteristics as mentioned before. The so-called "able to show," is the situation of the relationship with the characteristics as mentioned before. The so-called "here" and so on, has already been explained in the first chapter, and will also be explained below. If the relationship of the three reasons is also established, even so, "some reasons" are said, because it depends on the difference of the examples. Like that, the so-called "that" and so on, is whatever can be seen by the root consciousness, and cannot be taken by the unseen. The so-called "there is no certainty about this," means that it cannot be determined that these root consciousnesses will not take it at other times either, because for some people who produce bright things from habituation, there is a situation of being taken, and there is no valid measure that can harm it. The so-called "because for what should be taken, there is no exceeding the root consciousness," means that relative to this person, for that which should be taken, there is no exceeding the root consciousness.
Tibetan
དབང་པོ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་གནས་སྐབས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་གང་གི་ཚེ་མིག་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡུལ་ལ་སོགས་པས་ཆོད་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ནུས་པ་མེད་པས་རང་གི་ཡུལ་འཛིན་པ་ལ་རུང་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ནི་ཇི་སྐད་དུ་བཤད་པའི་དབང་པོ་ལས་འདས་པ་ཉིད་དོ། །གཞན་ལ་ཡང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཕ་རོལ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལས་སོ། །འདིར་གཞན་ཉིད་ནི་ཡུལ་ལ་སོགས་པས་བསྐལ་པའི་གཟུགས་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཁྱད་པར་རོ། །འོ་ན་གང་འདི་མི་རྟག་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་རྣམ་པས་སམ་དུ་མར་ཁ་དོག་ལ་སོགས་པ་འཛིན་པ་དེ་ལྟར་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཚད་མ་ཀུན་ལས་བཏུས་པའི་གཞུང་ཕྱོགས་སྔ་མ་དང་བཅས་པ་བཤད་པར་བཞེད་པས། གཞལ་བྱ་དེས་ན་ཁ་དོག་གི །མི་རྟག་པ་ནི་རྟོགས་མི་འགྱུར། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྨོས་ཏེ། སྒྲ་མི་རྟག་པ་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་སྤྱི་དང་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པ་ཅན་གྱི་བློ་གཅིག་ཉིད་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གཞན་དག་སེམས་སོ། །ཁྱད་པར་འཛིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི། རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡིན་གྱི་སངས་རྒྱས་པའི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ནི་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་འཛིན་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དུ་མ་ཞེས་བྱ་ བ་དེ་ནི་ཤེས་པ་ཁྱད་པར་དག་ནི་མཐོང་བ་གང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པས་འཆད་པར་བྱེད་དོ། །འདིར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པར་འདོད་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་ཉིད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་སྤྱི་ཉིད་མཐོང་བ་དེ་ཉིད་འདིར་ཚུལ་གསུམ་པའི་རྟགས་སྨྲ་བའི་གཞུང་ལ་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཡིན་པར་འདོད་དེ། སྤྱི་ཉིད་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ལ་རྟགས་ཀྱི་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་དང་ལྡོག་པ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དཔེར་ན་ཁྱད་པར་མཐོང་བའི་ཚད་མས་ཁྱད་པར་འཛིན་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་ཀྱང་ཁྱད་པར་འཛིན་ཅིང༌། ཁྱད་པར་མཐོང་བའི་ཚད་མས་ཀྱང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་བས་ན་ཡུལ་གཅིག་ལ་ཚད་མ་དུ་མ་འཇུག་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །དེ་ལྟར་ན་རེ་ཞིག་གཞལ་བྱ་གཉིས་ཉིད་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཚད་མ་གཉིས་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་རྣམ་པར་གཞག་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་སྤངས་ནས་གཞལ་བྱ་མང་བ་ཉིད་དམ་གཞལ་བྱ་གཅིག་ལ་ཚད་མ་དུ་མ་འཇུག་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཚད་མ་མང་པོ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱོགས་སྔ་མ་ཚད་མ་ཀུན་ལས་བཏུས་པའི་གཞུང་བཤད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཡང་ན། གསུམ་གཅིག་གྲངས་ནི་བསལ་བའམ། །གཞལ་བྱ་གཉིས་ནི་མཐོང་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཞེས་བཤད་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་སེལ་བར་བྱེད་པས་ན་འདི་ཕྱོགས་སྔ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ཉིད་ནི་འོ་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་གཞུང་འདིས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྨོས་སོ། །ཁ་དོག་སྤྱི་ལ་སྦྱོར་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་འདི་སྐད་དུ་ཁ་དོག་ལ་སོགས་པ་མི་རྟག་གོ་ཞེས་སྟོན་པར
Chinese
所谓的“依赖于诸根的状况差别”，是指在眼睛等诸根被境等所断绝等，没有能力，不适合执取自己的境时。这正是如前所说的诸根超越之境。所谓的“对于其他”，是指从其他世界等而言。此处所说的“其他”本身，是指境等所造成的劫之色等差别。那么，如果以无常等方式，或者以多种方式执取颜色等，那么，像这样等等，大师想要解释《量理宝论》的先前观点，因此说了“所量因此是颜色，无常则无法理解”。其他人认为，“声音是无常的”这句话，是具有共同相和自相特征的同一种心识。所谓的“为了执取差别”，是指这是自相，而佛教徒的随念不是执取自相。所谓的“多种”，将通过“那些知识的差别是所见”等来解释。此处所谓的“想要随念的特征本身”，是指见到共同相本身，在此，三相推理的论典中，被认为是随念，因为在要证成的共同相本身上，存在着相随和相违。例如，就像见到差别的量通过执取差别一样，因为现量也执取差别，并且通过见到差别的量也是如此，因此就像在一个境上存在多个量一样。如此一来，暂时舍弃了“因为所量是二者，所以量是二者”的安立，而“因为所量众多，或者在一个所量上存在多个量，所以量众多”的先前观点，是解释《量理宝论》的论典。或者，“三一之数被排除，因为见到所量二者”，这所说的是被排除的，因此这是先前的观点。这本身是通过“那么”等论典来说明的。所谓的“为了施加于颜色共同相”，这表明了颜色等是无常的
English
The so-called "depending on the difference in the state of the senses" refers to when the eyes and other senses are cut off by objects and so on, and are incapable of grasping their own objects. This is precisely the state of transcendence of the senses as described earlier. The so-called "for others" refers to other worlds and so on. Here, "other" itself refers to the differences in the kalpa's form, etc., caused by objects and so on. So, if one grasps colors, etc., in ways such as impermanence, or in multiple ways, then, like this and so on, the master wants to explain the previous view of the *Compendium on Valid Cognition*, therefore he said, "The measurable is therefore color, impermanence cannot be understood." Others think that the statement "sound is impermanent" is the same mind with the characteristics of both the general and the particular. The so-called "for the sake of grasping the difference" means that this is the self-characteristic, but the Buddhist's recollection is not grasping the self-characteristic. The so-called "multiple" will be explained by "those differences of knowledge are what is seen," and so on. Here, the so-called "the characteristic itself that one wants to recollect" means that seeing the general characteristic itself, here, in the treatise on the three-mode reason, it is considered recollection, because on the general characteristic itself to be proven, there is concomitance and counter-concomitance. For example, just as the measure that sees the difference grasps the difference, because direct perception also grasps the difference, and it is also through the measure that sees the difference, therefore it is like there are multiple measures on one object. In this way, temporarily abandoning the establishment that "because the measurable is two, the measure is two," and the previous view that "because the measurable is many, or there are multiple measures on one measurable, the measure is many," is the explanation of the treatise *Compendium on Valid Cognition*. Or, "the number of three and one is excluded, because the two measurables are seen," what is said is what is excluded, therefore this is the previous view. This itself is explained through the treatise "then" and so on. The so-called "in order to apply to the general characteristic of color" indicates that color and so on are impermanent.