English
In the mind, there is no action other than arising, because just like the consciousness that acts as a specific function, it is also the same. Therefore, it is shown that there is no single function, which is "If it is one, then..." etc. Only when one's own consciousness arises, does its consciousness also arise, because there is no difference. If it is not the cause of arising, then it is shown that it is not the agent, which is "Sequential arising is also non-existent." "As before," etc., refers to grasping the difference at the moment of difference. "One consciousness enters sequentially, not many," etc., shows that it is unreasonable, which is "In one..." etc. It is contradictory for one to arise at different times, but it is not repetition, it speaks of the difference of repetition, which is "By the difference of repetition..." etc. If the previous consciousness grasps the different nature of the later consciousness, or the non-different nature, then there is no result, because it is too excessive, and it is repetition, this is shown, which is "Sequential arising also..." etc. Their difference and non-difference are also, their own nature is also, those are the ones who have the aspect of grasping them. "Not conceptual thought," etc., is related to "The nature of conceptual thought is the later one." If asked why, then it is answered that there is no difference from the previous one. If it is said that even if it is the same thing, it does not arise sequentially, but arises simultaneously, then it is said: "If consciousness arises simultaneously, then the established and the establisher are both non-existent." That is to say, both are spoken from the state. In the view of the Lokayata, the various parts of consciousness, that is, the aspect and the knowing, arise simultaneously, and "that" etc. are the classification of the scriptures, that is, the determination, its basis is the cause, because of its existence, the establisher and the established are established with the nature of determination and determined, that is, terminology. It is shown that on the object of establishment and refutation, it exists like the cause of dharma and dharmata, which is "parts" etc. The meeting of the root and the object is not different from time and nature, because the root and the substance meet and aggregate, having aggregation, and it is its aggregation and its difference, and it is also the cause of grasping with all its nature, without difference.
Chinese
如果这样认为，就会导致执著于一切。为了说明，凡不是从某事物产生的事物，与该事物相遇就能成立为理解其他事物的依据，所以说“即使自身全部相关”。或者，为了消除“如果存在相遇的所见，则必然对事物具有确定性，但并非是所见的因”这种观点，即使是从那种情况下产生的，在其他情况下也无法理解是从该事物产生的。为了说明这一点，所以说“因为关联没有差别”。为了说明，如果凭借根、相遇和关联，从相遇和聚合的自性中产生执著，则会产生过分的推论，所以说“如果通过结合”。这指的是通过聚合于一个意义上。所谓“彼即此”指的是眼所执著的事物本身。为了说明，由于关联没有差别，所以在执著上也没有差别，所以说“因此”。如果有人说，并非是执著于从眼中产生的青蓝色本身，所以说“显现也是”。为了说明“形状，仅仅是形状，是在黑暗中执著的”这种道理，所以说“因此”。因为它既是真实的，也是形状，所以是它的。为了说明，遮蔽事物的是灰尘还是其他事物会被消除，所以说“那个事物”。为了说明，成立的相是具有彼性的，因此是量，所以说“因此，相本身”。为了说明，所说的法和非法之行，是通过意愿和其他对境本身来确定识的，所以说“在行中”。所谓“非”，
English
If it is thought so, it would lead to being attached to everything. In order to explain that whatever does not arise from something, encountering that thing can establish the basis for understanding other things, it is said, "Even if the self is entirely related." Or, in order to eliminate the view that "If there is a seen of encounter, then it is necessarily certain about things, but it is not the cause of the seen," even if it arises from that kind of situation, in other situations it is impossible to understand that it arises from that thing. In order to explain this, it is said, "Because there is no difference in relation." In order to explain that if, by means of the sense faculty, encounter, and relation, attachment arises from the nature of encounter and aggregation, then an excessive inference would arise, it is said, "If through combination." This refers to aggregating in one meaning. The so-called "that is this" refers to the very thing that is grasped by the eye. In order to explain that since there is no difference in relation, there is also no difference in attachment, it is said, "Therefore." If someone says that it is not attachment to the very blue color that arises from the eye, it is said, "Appearance also." In order to explain the reason that "shape, merely shape, is what is grasped in darkness," it is said, "Therefore." Because it is both true and shape, it is its. In order to explain that what obscures things is dust or something else that will be eliminated, it is said, "That thing." In order to explain that the established aspect is possessed of thatness, therefore it is a valid cognition, it is said, "Therefore, the aspect itself." In order to explain that the spoken Dharma and non-Dharma actions are determined by intention and the other object itself, it is said, "In action." The so-called "not"
Chinese
哦，虽然没有区别，但显示为“是”，这是因为承认法是不同的。也就是说，身体等名称是通过对可以被分别安立的事物进行考察而成为不同的对境，但另一种则不是这个意思。烟是从火中来的，虽然这是事物的一种区分，但为了说明果等本身是通过随行和相违而显现出来的，所以说是“如是之相”。“安住”的意思是作用，为了说明是与此相关的差别而进行考察，所以说是“具有作者的自性”。既是一，又不是一，这是对一和非一进行考察的结果。例如，拉辛（人名）被认为是一。 “他的”指的是多个。“断除了与自身相违的”指的是胜义谛。“显现为二”指的是对境和意识的显现。仅仅是识，难道不应该不是对境的识吗？如果说“对蓝色的识不是对黄色的识”，那么“对境的识是什么”？外道声称，意识承认少许其他事物，但事实并非如此。那么是什么呢？凡是现量，就是不隐蔽的自性，有时就像行走时脚被草刺扎到一样会被遗忘。为了大量地显示精进，所以说“各个各个的识是常识，具有自己的自性”，这就是它的意思。或者说“凡是什么，就是这个”，因为是识，所以能够消除被遗忘的对境。 “各个各个”指的是常和现量，不是常和隐蔽的就会被遗忘或犹豫。有些人说，各个各个的识是连接。因为各个确定或识就是那个，所以中间的词是后面的，这是注释的意图。 “那个”指的是不隐蔽的蓝色等自性的意思。隐蔽的物质的识，是什么识呢？什么也不是，因为是相违的。ོན་ཏོ། 实际上并非如此，然而因为与意义相似而产生“是这样吗”的想法，这被称为“如果是那样”。因为从见到意义而与它相似，所以显示出疑惑，这被称为“会变成错误”。“如果是那样”仅仅是这里想要成立的论证，而生起和特殊性将用“是那样”和“从那产生”来解释。解释说这是共同的不确定性，并非如此，这被称为“头发和苍蝇等”。体验不是取决于发生者吗？如果有人说，像那样被它区分的相似性在意义上是不存在的。然而，这里是智慧，即理解。所谓“对于谁”是指对于哪个发生者。显示出具有蓝色的相状所知的未隐藏性就是体验，而不是不同性，这被称为“这即是那”。即使理解为与外境相似，但极微的自性不是粗大，因为是相违的，这被称为“那些极微”。如果说没有间隔的极微自身显现为一个，众多的是粗大，并非如此，因为遥远和 另一个是树木，对于显现没有差别的词语，智者们不会感到满意，因为对于它来说，仅仅是不显现间隔不是原因。具有众多间隔的显现和非显现自身不是粗大，因为在那时显现自身有差别。显示出因为用“外境的粗大也是各种各样，那是一个吗”来遮止，所以没有疑惑，这被称为“因此”，即“即使是”，意思是即使是意义的事物自身。即使自己的智慧的知识与意义相似，但像蓝色一样，不能理解其他的蓝色。然而，因为是果，所以知识是意义的理解者，但蓝色不是，如果这样想，就说了“是那样和从那产生”。从那产生的特殊性的与它相似性不应该是它的理解者，就像与它相似一样，与它
English
Oh, although there is no difference, it is shown as 'is,' this is because it is admitted that dharmas are different. That is to say, names such as body are different objects because they are examined in terms of what can be separately established, but the other is not what it means. Smoke comes from fire, although this is a distinction of things, but in order to explain that the fruit and so on themselves are manifested through following and contradicting, it is said to be 'such a form.' 'Abiding' means action, in order to explain that it is examined as a difference related to this, so it is said to be 'having the nature of an agent.' It is both one and not one, this is the result of examining one and non-one. For example, Lhasin (a person's name) is considered one. 'His' refers to multiple. 'Eliminating contradictions with oneself' refers to the ultimate truth. 'Appearing as two' refers to the appearance of object and consciousness. Is it not unreasonable that only consciousness is the consciousness of object? If it is said that 'the consciousness of blue is not the consciousness of yellow,' then 'what is the consciousness of object?' Outsiders claim that consciousness acknowledges a little bit of other things, but that is not the case. So what is it? Whatever is manifest, is the nature of not being hidden, and sometimes it will be forgotten like when walking and the foot is pricked by grass. In order to show diligence in large quantities, it is said that 'each and every consciousness is common sense, having its own nature,' that is what it means. Or it is said that 'whatever it is, is this,' because it is consciousness, it can eliminate the object that is forgotten. 'Each and every' refers to constant and manifest, what is not constant and hidden will be forgotten or hesitated. Some people say that each and every consciousness is a connection. Because each determination or consciousness is that, the middle word is the latter, this is the intention of the commentary. 'That' refers to the meaning of the nature of blue etc. that is not hidden. The consciousness of hidden matter, what consciousness is it? It is nothing, because it is contradictory.
English
Onto. It is not actually so, but the thought that "is it like that?" arises because of the similarity to the meaning, which is called "if it is like that." Because it is similar to seeing the meaning, it shows doubt, which is called "it will become an error." "If it is like that" is merely the argument that is intended to be established here, and the arising and particularity will be explained by "it is like that" and "arising from that." The explanation that this is a common uncertainty is not so, which is called "hair and flies, etc." Is not experience dependent on the one who experiences it? If someone says that the similarity distinguished by it in that way does not exist in meaning. However, here is wisdom, that is, understanding. "To whom" refers to which experiencer. Showing that the unhiddenness known by the blue aspect is experience, not difference, is called "this is that." Even if it is understood as being similar to external objects, the nature of atoms is not coarse, because it is contradictory, which is called "those atoms." If it is said that the atoms without intervals themselves appear as one, and the many are coarse, it is not so, because of the distance and the other is trees, the words without difference in appearance do not satisfy the wise, because for it, merely the non-appearance of intervals is not the reason. The appearance and non-appearance with many intervals themselves are not coarse, because the appearances themselves are different at that time. Showing that there is no doubt because it is prevented by "is the coarseness of the external also various, is that one?" is called "therefore," that is, "even if it is," meaning even if it is the thing of meaning itself. Even if one's own knowledge of wisdom is similar to the meaning, it cannot understand other blue like blue. However, because it is the result, knowledge is the understander of meaning, but blue is not, if one thinks so, it is said "it is like that and arising from that." The similarity to it of the particularity arising from that should not be its understander, just like being similar to it, with it