English
It is called "is." "Even if not entered" means not relying on dreams, etc. "Thus" means in the state of being awake. "As different" means due to liking and disliking. Explaining "eye, etc." means "if." It means that a distinction should be made between manifestation and phenomena. If it is thought that because habit and other things are not important, they are added, therefore this is a distinction, then this is "however." If this is the case, then habit itself is the main thing, and the eye is subsequent, therefore although it is certain for holding form, the arising of knowledge that holds certainty and uncertainty about it is due to the distinction of habits. In order to indicate happiness and other things, it is "if eye, etc." Eliminating the question of "arising from the eye, manifesting form, how is it from others." If it becomes other, because there is no own nature, then there is no difference for phenomena, if it is said how is it possible that things have no own nature, then it is not, it is "mutual," meaning that non-deception is also the phenomenon itself. "If deluded" means that there is completely nothing in the external object. Indicating that because it is a delusion of other nature in place and time, therefore indicating from where the mind comes, meaning that there is also no non-deception for meaning. If one recognizes other than one's own nature, then places, etc. will also become other, indicating that it is not other, therefore it is said "therefore it is phenomenon." Like phenomenon, it is the meaning of the external object. Isn't all knowledge external objects? If it is said that in distinguishing, it comes from knowledge without harm, then it is "what is harmed." Is what is harmed by it the similarity made by the external object, or the nature increased by the own nature of the external object? For this, because it is the nature of experience. Through "is," etc., if for the knowledge of reason and meaning with aspects is also its knowledge, then its answer is the reason of only consciousness, if the external object exists, then it will become its knowledge itself. Thinking that this is the reason of aspects, it is "if knowledge has aspects," meaning that everything is only by strength.
English
Since it is transformed by placing it in e-bar, it is said to be combined with "form and having." Although the appearance of eyes, etc., is not a nearby object, smells, etc., appear to the eyes, etc. To the saying "How does it exist?" this is an agreement. It is not obscured by proximity, but to show that the appearance produced by the eyes, etc., is special, this is called "however." Appearing there is called appearing on the eyeball, that is, appearance. It is not large, that is, not coarse, because it is only the size of the eyeball. How, that is, blue or yellow, because it obscures the form that makes it clear. Showing this itself is called "color also." What enters is light. Behind and in front, according to the measure of the approaching object, there are large, etc., that is, for large and small, etc. What is special is that it changes from being unclear before to being clear, and if it is related to the appearance of the eye, it is the nature of awareness, and it was not the nature of awareness before, and if the particularity of what it produces does not exist, then it was unclear or unaware before. If there is another particularity, then it is shown that it will become endless, which is called "if." If awareness comes from light, then everything is its essence, and it is shown that there is no limit to the establishment of light, which is called "however, nature." The form of everything, that is, the form of the eyes, etc. The meaning exists in proximity. Just arising is called just following without turning back. From where, is called following with turning back. From where is proximity known? If it follows the meaning itself, then it will hold that itself, then there is no need for the discrimination of form, this is the meaning. For arising, proximity itself, although it transcends the senses, but for awareness, if it knows, then that awareness itself is because it knows with such a thing, and because it is self-evident, it does not enter others, and even if it enters, it will become its essence, therefore the senses are also the determiners themselves. If it is determined only from the senses, then its object will also become meaningless because it comes from that itself. What is being born from things is called having a determination for the senses, this is only a speculation of the mind.
Chinese
因为从彼产生之自性并非决定，故不决定。虽有根，若无彼则非识。若如是，则从根门以彼之自性之相状而增益，是由随行等所了知，所显示并非仅仅是，是名为“从境等”。名为“若干相”者，是未于生起作决定观察亦无过失之义。是与境相似之相，谓知是相似性或即彼性而增益者，是从根而执境为各别决定，谓以生起决定之相而作饶益之故，如是思惟也。名为“唯从何”者，是从何与何唯也。虽于生起为无差别，然少分者是由相似性而生起，或显示是增益彼性之境，是名为譬如。谓识之青色是与识无有他异，以外境所作者，如父所作之子之体性般而见也。名为“一”者，是虽为作者，然为令知彼之外非为种种之作者之故。显示彼者，是名为“从彼生”。如是显示从义性而见义之相者，是名为“因此”，谓义性是作相者，以见彼之相故之义。显示义性是生起相之差别，故于执境为决定，而非根者，是名为“遥远”。相之作者性即是所取性，然于拉雅亦为手之主，以遍满太过之因性，当如何作耶？所显示者，是名为“从彼之外”，谓于彼之因性，即于知之因性也。相似者，是与从彼之外之根等也。于境等者，是于相似也。彼之分是作相性为主要之故。彼性非是，以于阳焰白色等，亦于具水之相状者，以于自之相而增益，故非因，故非境也。境决定者亦为过失等之
English
Because the nature of arising from that is not definite, it is uncertain. Even if there is a sense faculty, if there is no that, it is not consciousness. If it is so, then the imputation of the nature of that through the gate of the sense faculty is to be understood by following, etc., and what is shown is not merely that, it is called "from objects, etc." The term "some aspects" means that there is no fault even if a definite examination is not made on arising. It is an aspect similar to an object, meaning to know which is the similarity itself or the imputation of that very nature, it is a separate determination from the sense faculty grasping the object, meaning that it is thought that it benefits by generating a definite aspect. The term "only from what" means from what and what only. Although there is no difference in arising, a small part is generated by similarity, or it is shown to be an object that imputes that very nature, which is called, for example. It is said that the blue color of consciousness is not different from consciousness, and what is done by an external object is seen like the nature of a son made by a father. The term "one" is for the purpose of knowing that although it is the agent, it is not the agent of various kinds other than that. Showing that is called "arising from that." Thus, showing that the aspect of meaning is seen from the nature of meaning is called "therefore," meaning that the nature of meaning is the maker of aspects, because the aspect of that is seen. Showing that the nature of meaning generates the difference of aspects, so it is definite in grasping the object, but not the sense faculty, is called "distant." The nature of the maker of aspects is the very nature of what is grasped, but even in the laya, it is the chief of the hand, with the cause of being too pervasive, what should be done? What is shown is called "other than that," meaning in the nature of that cause, that is, in the nature of the cause of knowing. Similar is with the sense faculties, etc., other than that. In objects, etc., it is in similarity. Its part is because the nature of making aspects is the main thing. That nature is not, because even in white heat haze, etc., also in those with the appearance of water, by imputing to one's own aspect, it is not a cause, so it is not an object. Even the definite object is faults, etc.
Chinese
因为那接近，为了能力明显显现的缘故。所谓“那没有”，如果连自己的形相都不能安立，那便不是境。“因本身能安立自己的形相”显示想要表达的是：所谓“因本身”。“它的形相”是自身（བདག་ཉིད་）的形相。两种，因本身和安立自己的形相也是。所谓“即使不是那样”，即使不是体验本身。如果是不了解或者只是了解其他，难道不会变成了解境吗？对于这种说法，说了“了解”等。显示境不合理，是“如果”等，即蓝色等。“因为没有意义”是说，因为那是依赖于感官等自性的缘故。否则，那是不合理的缘故。“因为不能”是说，因为没有能了解的量（ प्रमाण，pramāṇa，量）。显示那，是“不了解是”等。对于正在了解的，因为仅仅了解它的自性，所以其他是多余的。显示那，是“如果了解”等。正在了解本身是果，难道不是作者在了解吗？那也行，无论是自我的变化的意识，还是感官等的作者，对于这种说法，说了“其他作用”。所谓“显示了”，因为感官等本身产生那样的自性，所以没有能了解的，已经显示了，即通过“如果没有那，那不会产生”等。所谓“境，知，它的知”，是论师陈那（Dignāga）的论典。“义的自己的显现”是说，通过“义显现和自显现”说了两种方式。“境了解的了解”是从差别来说的。“下面的那些”是说，就是这个。“如果不是那样”等，如果不是那样，即“如果”等。暂时这样，各种形相，不是以具有详细说明的方式见到的。所谓“不成立”的理由本身是，因为从“这是瓶子”等，没有了解瓶子的形相，所以不分别了解的形相是不合理的。瓶子的形相
English
Because it is close, for the sake of the ability to manifest clearly. "If that is not there" means that if one cannot even establish one's own form, then that is not an object. "The cause itself can establish its own form" shows that what is intended to be expressed is: "The cause itself." "Its form" is the form of itself. Both, the cause itself and the establishment of one's own form are also. "Even if it is not like that" means even if it is not the experience itself. If it is not understood or only understands others, will it not become understanding the object? To this statement, "understanding" etc. is said. Showing that the object is unreasonable is "if" etc., that is, blue etc. "Because it is meaningless" means that because it is dependent on the nature of the senses etc. Otherwise, that is unreasonable. "Because it cannot" means that because there is no valid means (प्रमाण，pramāṇa， ಪ್ರಮಾಣ) to understand. Showing that, is "not understanding is" etc. For the one who is understanding, because only its own nature is understood, the others are superfluous. Showing that, is "if understanding" etc. Understanding itself is the result, is it not the author understanding? That is also fine, whether it is the changing consciousness of the self, or the author of the senses etc., to this statement, "other action" is said. "Showed" means that because the senses etc. themselves produce such a nature, there is no one who can understand, it has been shown, that is, through "if there is no that, that will not arise" etc. "Object, knowledge, its knowledge" is the treatise of the teacher Dignāga. "The appearance of the meaning itself" means that through "appearance of meaning and self-appearance" two ways have been said. "The knowledge of object understanding" is from the difference. "Those below" means that this is it. "If it is not like that" etc., if it is not like that, that is, "if" etc. For the time being, in this way, various forms, are not seen in a way that has detailed explanations. The reason for "not established" itself is that because from "this is a pot" etc., the form of the pot is not understood, so not distinguishing the form of understanding is unreasonable. The form of the pot