Chinese
因此这样说。否则，应当推测的词就会变成推测。如果为了产生现量境的知识，现量为什么不会变成为了他人呢？不是的，因为它不是与它相关的自性，因此不是量。因为对于理解意义来说，它是有指示的。无论如何，所示的三相，因为它是智者应当推测的知识之因，所以可以近似地安立为推测，因此声音不是量。想要显示其他则不是，因此这样安立名称，因为说了“能够表示能力的因词”。这样，如果没有无分别的词，因为没有分别的决定，所以说话者本身是不确定的。为了无矛盾地成立具有贪欲等，归纳为对返回犹豫不定，因此称为声音也是。身体或色等也称为我和我的，也执着为不是共同的，我和我所的见解不是烦恼之因吗？然而，主要者和另一者是执着为成立的。即使舍弃了对我和我所等的见解，因为烦恼的相续有无始之因，所以不是从心相续中退失。因此，因为没有相违品，所以对于贪欲等，不会对说话者返回犹豫不定。认为有为法如无常等。 如果是从其他，就是说，执着于成立安乐等，并且记忆的相续中过患没有穷尽，因此不是成立无。然而，即使认为对于舍弃了我和我所等的见解，没有见到烦恼之因，也不是的，因为那不观察到，就像从无贪中不观察到一样，对于不是合适的境，不是成立无，这样说，就是说，过患没有穷尽。因为成立安乐等的知识与我无关，所以
English
Therefore, it is said in this way. Otherwise, the word to be inferred would become inference. If it is to generate knowledge of the object of perception, why wouldn't perception also become for the sake of others? No, because it is not of a nature related to it, therefore it is not a valid cognition. Because it is indicative for understanding the meaning. In any case, the shown three aspects, because it is the cause of knowledge to be inferred by the wise, it can be approximately established as inference, therefore sound is not a valid cognition. Wanting to show that other is not, therefore establishing the name in this way, because it is said "the causal word that can express ability." Thus, if there is no non-conceptual word, because there is no separate determination, the speaker himself is uncertain. In order to establish without contradiction having desire etc., it is summarized as hesitating to return, therefore it is called sound also. The body or form etc. are also called I and mine, and it is also clung to as not being common, isn't the view of I and mine the cause of afflictions? However, the main one and the other are clung to as being established. Even if the view of I and mine etc. is abandoned, because the continuum of afflictions has a beginningless cause, it is not lost from the mindstream. Therefore, because there is no contradictory side, for desire etc., there will be no hesitation to return to the speaker. Thinking that conditioned things are like impermanence etc. If it is from other, that is to say, clinging to establishing happiness etc., and the faults in the continuum of memory are not exhausted, therefore it is not establishing non-existence. However, even if it is thought that for those who have abandoned the view of I and mine etc., the cause of afflictions is not seen, it is not so, because that non-observation, like non-observation from non-attachment, for an object that is not suitable, it is not establishing non-existence, thus saying, that is to say, the faults are not exhausted. Because the knowledge of establishing happiness etc. is unrelated to me, therefore
Chinese
贪欲等是产生的原因。因为太过分了，所以显示说：没有见到是怎么回事呢？如果这样，那么如何认为它是坏的呢？说的是过失不会穷尽。从哪里与所要成就的事相结合才能领悟，不相结合就不能领悟。而且如果没有恐惧，那就是永恒的，对于无常的事物，也像心一样具有连续性，没有断绝的方法。即使有，也像普通人一样完全不知道。然而，所谓原因，就是结合。永恒本身是不成立的，因为贪欲等与生俱来等理由已经驳斥了。没有驳斥不一致的一面，就不是能成立的理由。显示说：因为有原因。因为原因没有不齐全的。即使有，也像寒冷一样，如果原因有不一致的一面，就会连根拔起。显示说：对治。对治也是，如果知道原因的本质，智者才知道它是与此相反的。显示说：原因的自性。注释中认为，有原因就是具有原因。所谓具有原因。外在的是酥油等。外在的是风等。没有能力等差别，是因为药物的成分会逐渐消失。所谓观无我，不是因为与境一起作用而消失。没有错误的认识，就是对于无我的境等，以及不共的色等，也执着于我与我所，或者执着于不共，如果它断绝了，就认为我断绝了，这就是不舍弃贪爱，一次又一次地接受它，就会被摧毁。对于这些，对方也只能承认。善逝薄伽梵像其他人一样是可靠的，但我们念诵吠陀的人就不是了。因为什么原因对其他人来说不是可靠的呢？因为不能清楚地显示。吠陀就是具有它的眼睛。
English
Greed and the like are the cause of arising. Because it is too excessive, it is shown: How is it that it is not seen? If so, how is it thought to be bad? It is said that faults will not be exhausted. From where can one understand by combining with what is to be accomplished, and one cannot understand without combining. Moreover, if there is no fear, then it is eternal, and for impermanent things, it also has continuity like the mind, and there is no way to cut it off. Even if there is, it is completely unknown like ordinary people. However, the so-called cause is combination. Eternity itself is not established, because reasons such as greed and the like being born with it have already refuted it. Not refuting the inconsistent aspect is not a reason that can be established. It is shown: because there is a cause. Because there is no incompleteness of the cause. Even if there is, like cold, if the cause has an inconsistent aspect, it will be uprooted. It is shown: the antidote. The antidote is also, if one knows the essence of the cause, the wise only know that it is the opposite of this. It is shown: the nature of the cause. In the commentary, it is considered that having a cause is having a cause. The so-called having a cause. External is ghee and the like. External is wind and the like. There is no difference in ability, etc., because the ingredients of the medicine will gradually disappear. The so-called viewing of no-self is not destroyed because it acts together with the object. Without wrong perception, that is, for the object of no-self, etc., and uncommon form, etc., also clinging to I and mine, or clinging to the uncommon, if it is cut off, it is thought that I am cut off, this is not abandoning craving, and accepting it again and again, it will be destroyed. For these, the other party can only admit. The Sugata Bhagavan is reliable like other people, but we who recite the Vedas are not. For what reason is it not reliable for others? Because it cannot be clearly shown. The Veda is the eye that has it.
Tibetan
སོགས་པ་ཁོ་ན་ལྟ་བུ་ཡིན་གྱི་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཐ་དད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་སྙམ་དུ་སེམས་པ་ནི། གལ་ཏེ་ཡང་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །འོན་ཏེ་གཞན་ཡང་ཚིག་གི་སྒོ་ནས་ཚད་མ་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན་ཡང་བདེན་ཏེ། ཕྱིན་ཅི་མ་ལོག་པར་སྨྲ་བ་ཡིན་ན་དེ་ལྟ་ཡིན་གྱི་བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རིག་བྱེད་ཚད་མས་གནོད་པའི་ཡུལ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་ཟེར་བ་ནི། ཚད་མ་ནི་ཕྱིན་ཅི་མ་ལོག་པ་ཡིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། ཐོག་མ་དང་ཐ་མ་མེད་པར་རྟོགས་ན་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ལ་དགའ་བ་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རིག་བྱེད་ལ་ནི་སྐྱོབ་པ་མེད་པས་དོར་བའི་ཡན་ལག་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ནི་དེ་ལས་བཟློག་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཉ་ཕྱིས་ལ་དངུལ་གྱི་ཤེས་པ་ནི་ཟིན་པ་ཁོ་ནའི་ཕྱིར་མི་འདོད་པར་ཐུགས་རྗེའི་དབང་གིས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ནི་སྐྱོབ་པ་མངལ་བའི་ཕྱིར། ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ལ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་ཚད་མ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་བསྟན་པ་ནི་སྐྱོབ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །དེ་རྣམ་པར་འཆད་པ་ནི། ཉིད་གཟིགས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། མཐོང་བ་སྔོན་དུ་འགྲོ་བ་ཅན་ནི་རང་གི་ཚིག་མཐོང་བའི་ཕྱིར། བཅོམ་ལྡན་འདས་ཀྱང་དེ་ལྟར་འགྱུར་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གཞན་དུ་ཡང་སླུ་བའི་བསམ་པ་མ་མཐོང་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནམ། འབྲས་མེད་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། ཐོབ་པར་བྱ་བ་མ་ལུས་པ་བརྙེས་པ་ནི་གཞན་དུ་གསུངས་པ་ལ་དགོས་པ་མེད་དོ། །ཐོབ་པར་བྱ་བ་མ་ཐོབ་པའི་ཆེད་དུ་བདག་ཏུ་ལྟ་བ་ཅན་ནི་གཞན་དུ་ཡང་སྨྲ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། སྤངས་པ་ཕུན་སུམ་ཚོགས་པ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །ཐོབ་ བར་བྱ་བ་ཐོབ་ཀྱང་འཕགས་པ་ཉན་ཐོས་བཞིན་དུ་དགོས་པ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཉེ་བར་མི་སྟོན་པ་ཁོ་ན་མ་ཡིན་ནམ། མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཐུགས་རྗེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ནི་གཞན་གྱི་དོན་འབའ་ཞིག་ལ་འཇུག་པར་སྟོན་པར་མཛད་པ་ནི་ཐུགས་བརྩེར་ལྡན་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། གཞན་གྱི་དོན་དུ་ནི་རང་ལ་དགོས་པ་མེད་ཀྱང་གཞན་གྱི་དོན་གྱི་དགོས་པ་ཚིག་གི་བྱེད་པ་གང་ལ་ཡིན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཁྱད་པར་གྱིས་གསུངས་པ་ཡིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བར་སྦྱར་རོ། །ཐུགས་རྗེ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཡང་དབང་པོ་ལས་འདས་པ་ཤེས་པར་མི་ནུས་པ་མི་མཁྱེན་ན་རྨོངས་པས་སྟོན་པར་བྱེད་པར་རྟོགས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནམ་ཞེ་ན། རྩོམ་ཀུན་ཡང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པའི་དོན་དུ་རྩོམ་པ་ནི་རྩོམ་ཀུན་ནོ། །དེ་ལ་མངོན་པར་སྦྱོར་བ་ནི་གོམས་པ་ལས་སོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་དྲན་པ་གོམས་པས་ཡིད་གསལ་བ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། སྐྱེ་བ་སྔ་མ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དྲན་པ་ཡིན་ན་ཆོས་དང་ཆོས་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཤེ
Chinese
就像其他事物一样，而不是薄伽梵，因为它们是不同的，如果这样想，那就是“如果也”。如果有人问，其他事物是否也是通过语言的途径成为量，答案是肯定的，如果说的是不颠倒的，那就是这样，但薄伽梵不是，因为它们是吠陀量所损害的对境。如果有人这样说，那么量就是不颠倒的，如果能认识到没有开始和结束，就不会喜欢颠倒。不是的，因为吠陀没有救护，所以是应该抛弃的部分。薄伽梵与此相反。就像用鱼皮擦拭银子的知识，因为只是抓住，所以不希望，而是由于慈悲的力量，薄伽梵怀有救护，会损害颠倒，因为它们没有量，这所显示的就是救护。对此进行解释，就是“亲自看见”，具有先前的看见，因为看见自己的语言。薄伽梵也会变成那样。否则，难道不是没有看见欺骗的想法吗？“因为没有结果”，意思是说，已经获得了所有应该获得的东西，所以没有必要说其他的话。为了获得尚未获得的东西，具有我执的人也会说其他的话，意思是说，因为没有圆满的断除。即使获得了应该获得的东西，就像圣声闻一样，也没有必要，难道不是仅仅不显示吗？不是的，具有慈悲心的人会显示进入仅仅是利他的行为，这就是“因为具有慈悲心”，意思是说，为了利他，即使自己没有必要，但为了利他的必要，语言的行为是针对什么的，通过这种差别来说明。如果具有慈悲心的人，也不能知道超越感官的事物，如果不了解，难道不是因为愚痴而显示吗？“一切造作也”，意思是说，为了全知而造作，就是一切造作。对此进行显现，是从习惯而来。因此，因为习惯了忆念，所以心是清晰的。如果忆念前世等等，就能知道法与非法。
English
Like other things, but not the Bhagavan, because they are different, if you think so, that is "if also." If someone asks whether other things are also valid through the path of language, the answer is yes, if what is said is not inverted, then that is so, but the Bhagavan is not, because they are the objects harmed by the Vedic measure. If someone says this, then the measure is non-inverted, and if one can recognize that there is no beginning and end, one will not like inversion. No, because the Vedas have no protection, so they are the part that should be abandoned. The Bhagavan is the opposite of this. Just like the knowledge of wiping silver with fish skin, because it is just grasping, so it is not desired, but due to the power of compassion, the Bhagavan harbors protection, and will harm inversion, because they have no measure, what is shown is protection. Explaining this, it is "seeing for oneself," having previous seeing, because seeing one's own language. The Bhagavan will also become like that. Otherwise, isn't it that the deceptive thought is not seen? "Because there is no result," meaning that all that should be obtained has been obtained, so there is no need to say other things. In order to obtain what has not yet been obtained, those who have ego will also say other things, meaning that because there is no perfect abandonment. Even if what should be obtained has been obtained, just like the noble Shravaka, there is no need, isn't it just not showing? No, those who have compassion will show entering into merely altruistic actions, that is "because of having compassion," meaning that for the sake of others, even if one does not need it oneself, but for the necessity of others, what is the action of language for, it is explained through this difference. If those who have compassion also cannot know things beyond the senses, if they do not understand, isn't it because of ignorance that they show? "All creations also," meaning that creating for the sake of omniscience is all creations. Manifesting this comes from habit. Therefore, because of the habit of remembering, the mind is clear. If one remembers previous lives, etc., one can know dharma and non-dharma.