Chinese
因为看到用牛粪等没有做成的东西。如果说这也是不确定的，那么为了增大牛犊而进行的非有情物的摄取，也是因为看到牛奶等的进入。这仅仅是不确定的。如果说这也是为了帮助一方，所以没有过失，那么如果是这样，难道不是存在着并非可见的其他的作者吗？因为是腐烂的变化，所以会变成特别的说法。对于区分和迷惑的对象进行帮助，没有任何区别。瓦罐等和土地等，即使瓦罐的作者本身消失了，但是特别的腐烂变化本身不会消失，难道不是迷惑吗？不是的，因为仅仅是靠近蚂蚁窝就表明了那是帮助的一方。如果水和火等也是帮助的一方，那么就不是区分了，如果说不是区分，那是因为只有泥土才是帮助的一方。仅仅通过区分就表明没有迷惑，这就是说，蚂蚁窝是陶工做的。通过靠近蚂蚁窝也表明了土地等也是帮助的一方，这就是说，没有看到那个果实。如果说区分的迷惑也被消除也很难考察，那么表明了您也是帮助的一方，所以消除迷惑的对象同样困难，这就是说，难道那个自在天也没有吗？作者的追随的自性之因，就像蚂蚁窝等一样，在土地等上也没有成立，这就是说，如果那样，您对此了解得太详细了。另外，为了表明不是怀疑的不成立，就是说，因为不需要持地，所以有形状等等。就像瓦罐等一样，土地等的自性难道不是有智慧的迷惑吗？因为那样非常出名，所以断恶仙人等说：一切的导师是特别的，比微细还要微细的是，光明梦境是智慧的境界，是理性的终极殊胜者。这个对于一切的生起，平等地显现遍布身体的。
English
Because it is seen that things such as cow dung are not made. If it is said that this is also uncertain, then the acquisition of non-sentient things in order to enlarge the calf is also because the entry of milk and the like is seen. This is only uncertain. If it is said that this is to help one side, so there is no fault, then if this is the case, is there not another author who is not visible? Because it is a decaying change, it will become a special statement. There is no difference in helping those who distinguish and confuse. Even if the author of the pot and the like and the land and the like disappears, the special decaying change itself will not disappear, is it not a delusion? No, because just being close to the ant nest indicates that it is the helping party. If water and fire and the like are also helping parties, then it is not a distinction, if it is said that it is not a distinction, it is because only the soil is the helping party. It is shown that there is no delusion only through distinction, that is to say, the ant nest is made by the potter. It is also shown that the land and the like are also helping parties by approaching the ant nest, that is to say, the fruit is not seen. If it is said that it is difficult to examine whether the delusion of distinction has also been eliminated, then it is shown that you are also helping one party, so it is equally difficult to eliminate the object of delusion, that is to say, does that Ishvara not have it either? The cause of the nature of the follower of the author, like the ant nest and the like, is also not established on the land and the like, that is to say, if that is the case, you know this in great detail. In addition, in order to show that it is not an uncertain non-establishment, it is said that because there is no need to hold the ground, there is shape and so on. Just like pots and the like, is the nature of the land and the like not a delusion of wisdom? Because it is so famous, the sage Ngan Spong and others said: The teacher of all is special, more subtle than the subtle is, the clear light dream is the realm of wisdom, is the ultimate supreme being of reason. This is equally manifested and pervades the bodies of all beings.
Chinese
生和增长坏灭等，恒常如轮般运转。如是所说的世界也是如此说的，从其他洲，或从大海中，或从方位的边际处，突然成办并且显现欲求而显现趋向，因为进入而成办，成办本身就是明智者所为，因此对于未见的作为，对于已作之理，也未曾退失。因此，如我等一般与体性不相符的具理者，不应如见到近取之自性的差别之火的差别一般被世间所舍弃，因为是最初的损害之理遣除之境之故。对于最初的白银之理，也是从见到差别而以擦拭之理损害，而对于此，瓶等和地基等的差别不是损害，因为对于二者，对于所立成立没有损害之故，以及随后的比量。另外，对于此不是损害，因为以遍及一切世间的名声损害之故，如说有兔子的不是月亮一般而思，此过失不是果相同吗？如是说。回答说在果上，说在果本身等上成办的是因。以共同体性也是，以瓶和地基等共同的自性也是。又，此因从何得知呢？所立随行之故，说是以所立之差别确定之量，与地等一起作，从果的决定的自性随行。具有关联者是各异之故，因为瓶和地基等各异之故，各异而近布置是果相同。譬如，果本身，对于所立之声，寻求之果，能立是共同，以产生和显现共同的自性也是。在因上，是处所的第七格，是依于说各异的过失之境者。即使是这样，如何得知是能立呢？因为对于常法不是极度依赖之故，不是显现。
English
Birth and growth, destruction, etc., constantly revolve like a wheel. The world that is spoken of in this way is also spoken of in the same way, from other continents, or from within the ocean, or from the edge of the directions, suddenly accomplishing and manifesting desire and manifesting inclination, because entering accomplishes, accomplishment itself is what the wise do, therefore, even for unseen actions, for the reason of what has been done, it has not been lost. Therefore, those with reason who do not conform to the nature, such as ourselves, should not be abandoned by the world like the difference of fire that sees the difference of the nature of the near-taken, because it is the object of eliminating the reason for the initial harm. For the initial reason of silver, it is also harmed by the reason of wiping from seeing the difference, but for this, the difference between pots and ground, etc., is not harmful, because for both, there is no harm to the established establishment, and the subsequent inference. Furthermore, it is not harmful to this, because it is harmful by the fame that pervades all the world, such as saying that the one with the rabbit is not the moon, and thinking, is this fault not the same as the fruit? So it is said. The answer is on the fruit, saying that what is accomplished on the fruit itself, etc., is the cause. With the common nature also, with the common nature of pots and ground, etc. Also, how is this cause known? Because the established follows, it is said that the amount of determining the difference of the established, together with the ground, etc., follows from the determined nature of the fruit. Those with connections are different, because pots and ground, etc., are different, the near arrangement that is different is the same fruit. For example, the fruit itself, for the established sound, the sought fruit, the establisher is common, with the common nature of producing and manifesting also. On the cause, is the seventh case of the place, is based on those who are the object of the fault of saying different. Even so, how is it known to be the establisher? Because it is not extremely dependent on the constant dharma, it is not manifest.
Tibetan
རིགས་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱོགས་ལ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འབྲས་བུ་ཉིད་ལ་སོགས་པས་དེ་ཙམ་གྱིས་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་རྗེས་སུ་འཇུག་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཡིན་ཏེ། གཞན་དུ་ན་མ་ངེས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །བསྐྱེད་པ་དང་མངོན་པར་གསལ་བར་རྗོད་བྱེད་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་འབྲས་བུ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཐུན་མོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དགོངས་པས་སྤྱིས་ཀྱང་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་བྱེ་བྲག་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་དཔེ་ལ་གནས་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་གྱི། སེམས་པ་ཅན་གྱིས་བྱིན་གྱིས་བརླབས་པའི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ལ་འབྲས་བུ་དང་མཚུངས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ནུས་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དང་ཐུན་མོང་བའི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ནི་སེམས་ཅན་ཕུལ་དུ་བྱུང་བའི་རྗེས་སུ་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་དེའི་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ས་གཞི་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ནི་དེ་དང་མཚན་ཉིད་མི་མཐུན་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་དུ་ནི་བདག་གིས་སྔོན་བྱས་པའི་ལས་སོ་ཞེས་སྨྲ་བ་ནི། ལས་ཁོ་ན་ལ་འབྱིན་བྱེད་དང༌། དབང་ཕྱུག་ཅེས་སྨྲ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ལུང་ཡང་དོན་འདི་ལ་རིགས་པ་ཡིན་གྱི། གཞན་ལ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། སླུ་བ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འདིས་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་བུམ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སེམས་པ་ཅན་ཡོད་ཀྱང་ལས་སྒྲུབ་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ། ས་གཞི་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལ་ལས་ཡོད་ཀྱང་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབ་པ་པོ་སེམས་པ་ཅན་ཅིས་སྒྲུབ་པར་མི་བྱེད་ཅེས་པ་བསལ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེས་བྱིན་གྱིས་བརླབས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་མ་མཐོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འདུས་པ་ཉིད་ལ་གཞན་གྱི་དོན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཁྱབ་པ་ཡིན་ལ། གཞན་ལ་འགྱུར་ཞིང་དེ་ལ་ཡང་དོན་དེ་ཉིད་ཡིན་པས་ཐུག་པ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། དེ་ཙམ་དུ་ཡང་འགྲུབ་པར་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །དཔེར་ན་དུ་བ་ལས་དུ་བའི་ངོ་བོའི་མེ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ལས་བཟློག་པའི་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ལ་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་གནས་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཞན་འདུས་པ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ཏེ། དུ་བའི་ངོ་བོ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་མེ་ལྟ་བུར་རྣམ་པར་གནས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལྟར་གྲུབ་པ་ཡིན་ན་ཤུགས་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པས་ རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་མེད་པའམ། འགལ་བ་ཉིད་དམ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་མ་ཚང་བ་ཉིད་སྐྱོན་ཡང་མེད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཆད་པར་ཐལ་བར་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཤུགས་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པའི་མེ་དང་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་རྣམས་མེད་པས་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་སྙམ་དུ་སེམས་པ་ལ། བསྒྲུབ་བྱས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྨོས་ཏེ། སྤྱིའི་ངོ་བོས་ཀྱང་རྗེས་སུ་འགྲོ་བ་ལས་འབྲས་བུ་ལ་ནི་དུ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལ་སྟེ། ཉེ་བར་མཚོན་པའི་དོན་ཡིན་པའི
Chinese
关于“类”这一方面，之所以说“所成立”是果等，仅仅因为这样就能随行，也就是说，是为了随顺。否则，就不能确定了。之所以说“生起和显现的言说本身，因为不是果，所以是共同的”，是考虑到即使通过总相也能成立，也就是说，是差别相，因为安住于例子本身就能显现。对于有心者的加持的能立，与果并不相同，因为能力等共同的自性，仅仅是随顺殊胜有情，所以才随行。地等自性，因为与此体性不相符，所以不随行。世间说“这是我先前所造的业”，这只是说业是施予者和自在者。经典也符合这个道理，否则就不对了，因为是欺骗。这否定了，既然瓶等有心者存在也能成办业，那么地等有业存在，为什么加持者有心者不能成办呢？因为没有见到其加持的自性。聚合本身遍及他者的意义，并且会转变为其他，而且对于其他来说也是同样的意义，因为没有穷尽。仅仅如此也不能成立。例如，从烟中看到烟的自性的火。因此，因为能立存在于与所成立相反的所成立中，所以不是其他的聚合，而是像不是烟的自性的火一样存在。如果这样成立，那么通过暗示成立， 没有随行，或者相违，或者所成立不圆满，也没有过失，因为所有的比量都会变成中断。想到因为没有通过暗示成立的火和随行等，所以不是这样。所以说了“所成立”，即使通过总相的自性也能随行，对于果来说，就是对于烟等，这是为了接近表示意义。
English
Regarding the aspect of "class," the reason for saying "what is to be established" is that it is due to the results and so on, simply because it can follow in this way, that is, to be in accordance. Otherwise, it would be uncertain. The reason for saying "the expression of arising and manifestation itself, because it is not a result, is common" is considering that even through the general characteristic, it can be established, that is, it is a specific characteristic, because it is clear that it abides in the example itself. For the establisher of the blessing of sentient beings, it is not the same as the result, because the nature of commonality such as ability, is only following the excellent sentient beings, so it follows. The nature of the earth and so on, because it does not conform to this nature, it does not follow. In the world, saying "this is the karma I did before," it is only saying that karma is the giver and the lord. The scriptures also conform to this reason, otherwise it is not right, because it is deception. This negates, since pots and other sentient beings exist and can accomplish karma, then why can't the blesser, the sentient being, accomplish it even though the earth and so on have karma? Because the nature of its blessing has not been seen. The aggregation itself is pervaded by the meaning of others, and it will transform into others, and for others, it is the same meaning, because there is no end. It will not be established just like that. For example, seeing the fire of the nature of smoke from the smoke. Therefore, because the establisher exists in the established, which is the opposite of the establisher, it is not another aggregation, but exists like the fire that is not the nature of smoke. If it is established in this way, then it is established by implication, there is no following, or contradiction, or the established is incomplete, and there is no fault, because all inferences will become interrupted. Thinking that it is not so because there is no fire and following, etc., established by implication. Therefore, it is said "what is to be established," even through the nature of the general characteristic, it can follow, for the result, it is for smoke and so on, this is to approach the meaning of representation.