Chinese
由于论敌的论式说，所听闻的事物本身是具有相违的，因此这里说相违是揭示关联的。如果追随论师的宗派，如果相违能使人理解关联，那么这也同样会被理解，这是辩论。为了驳斥这一点，论中说“并非不存在”。如果常和无常的意义不存在，那么听闻本身就不是不存在。这是这样说的：对于此，相违并没有成立。如果成立，那么是其他的意义，不会成为结果。如果问：如何理解没有相违呢？回答说：从那之中，对于那些本身。论师将所听闻的事物本身作为不共，因此将产生怀疑的因素置于不确定之中。因此，如果此不存在常和无常，那么就是不存在，并且听闻的意识不会对常和无常产生怀疑。解释说，如果不是那样。如果确定了什么不存在，那么存在就是为了表明存在，因此是确定，不会成为怀疑的原因。如果两者都不存在，那么就会推论出表明不存在，并且两者不可能同时存在，因此会产生怀疑。如果那样，那么如果两者都不存在，那么“不存在本身”就不会成立，因此没有相违。如果问：那么论师是如何说具有相违的呢？回答说：说了“确定存在”等等。这表明了没有确定从常和无常中相违，因此说没有，但不是说如果那不存在，那么就只有不存在。如果问：难道虚空和瓶子等没有听闻吗？如果问：为什么对于那不存在，没有确定为不存在本身呢？回答说：对于虚空等，确定为不存在本身是真实的，但对于常和无常则不是。如果问：难道对于常和无常，也没有确定为不存在吗？回答说：那也是真实的，但是因为没有常和无常，所以对于那是不存在呢？还是因为不是声音唯一的法，因为是不共的，所以不会产生怀疑。因此，声音是常还是无常，因为是不共的
English
Because the opponent's argument states that the object of hearing itself is contradictory, it is said here that contradiction reveals the connection. If one follows the teacher's school, if contradiction can make one understand the connection, then this will also be understood in the same way, this is the debate. To refute this, it is said in the text, "It is not that it does not exist." If the meaning of permanent and impermanent does not exist, then hearing itself is not non-existent. This is what is being said: For this, contradiction is not established. If it is established, then it is another meaning, and it will not become a result. If one asks: How is it understood that there is no contradiction? The answer is: From that, for those themselves. The teacher places the object of hearing itself as uncommon, therefore placing the factor that causes doubt in uncertainty. Therefore, if this does not exist as permanent and impermanent, then it is non-existent, and the consciousness of hearing will not doubt the permanent and impermanent. The explanation is, if it is not like that. If it is determined what does not exist, then existence is to indicate existence, therefore it is certain, and it will not become a cause of doubt. If both do not exist, then it will be inferred to indicate non-existence, and it is impossible for both to exist simultaneously, therefore doubt will arise. If that is the case, then if both do not exist, then "non-existence itself" will not be established, therefore there is no contradiction. If one asks: Then how did the teacher say that it has contradiction? The answer is: He said "certain existence" etc. This shows that there is no certainty of contradiction from permanent and impermanent, therefore it is said that there is not, but it is not said that if that does not exist, then there is only non-existence. If one asks: Don't space and vase etc. have hearing? If one asks: Why is it not certain as non-existence itself for that which does not exist? The answer is: For space etc., it is true that it is certain as non-existence itself, but it is not for permanent and impermanent. If one asks: Isn't it also certain that permanent and impermanent do not exist for that? The answer is: That is also true, but because there is no permanent and impermanent, is it non-existent for that? Or is it because it is not the unique dharma of sound, because it is uncommon, therefore there will be no doubt. Therefore, whether sound is permanent or impermanent, because it is uncommon
Chinese
並非是使聽聞得以理解。如果說，並非如實使所聽聞的得以理解嗎？這是對確定的隨行進行了論證。因此，即使那樣並非是它的果，但由於聽聞的意識是隨著遮遣而產生的，所以說遮遣並非是果的本質，但對此卻說沒有遮遣。之所以沒有遮遣，是因為它能成立懷疑。雖然沒有遮遣時存在著不觀察，但沒有遮遣，又如何從中成立懷疑呢？對於這個疑問，為了表明因為恆常或無常以及因和果的實體本身尚未成立，所以才說了「當什麼時候」等等。由於兩個例子的本質，因為法不相同，所以為了特別顯示出是後起的，即使這裡沒有差別，也會變成是法相同的例子。當法相同的例子不能顯示火和煙是因和果的實體時，隨行本身就不能成立，如果實體本身尚未成立，又怎麼能成立勢力呢？凡是由勢力所引發的，那在它尚未成立時是不會成立的。同樣地，當法不相同的例子不能顯示火和煙是因和果的實體時，由於不存在不能成立，又怎麼能記得隨行呢？再者，為什麼要依賴這個來顯示呢？因為如果這個不是果，就沒有隨行，如果不是這樣，因為與其他事物沒有確定的聯繫，所以已經說過了，同樣地，如果沒有遮遣，如果不是這樣，如果沒有它，為什麼不會變成存在呢？如果這樣問，諸天因為歡喜而不知道時機。僅僅因為聽聞的意識本身沒有果的本質，所以才要說沒有遮遣。如果通過依賴來提問，為什麼不說呢？如果爭辯說為什麼要說存在於其他基礎上呢？對此，這裡所說的是，對於通達具有隨行和遮遣的理由，如果沒有因和果的實體，通過顯示沒有它，由於確定隨行和遮遣是唯一的方便，如果沒有它就不會產生，所以聽聞的意識本身是其他事物。
English
It is not what makes hearing understandable. If it is said, is it not that which makes what is heard understandable as it is? This is an argument for the established following. Therefore, even if that is not its result, it is said that negation is not the essence of the result, because the consciousness of hearing follows the negation, but it is said that there is no negation. The reason why there is no negation is that it can establish doubt. Although there is non-observation when there is no negation, but there is no negation, how can doubt be established from it? To this question, in order to show that because permanence or impermanence and the entity of cause and effect themselves have not been established, it is said, "When what time," and so on. Because of the nature of the two examples, because the dharmas are not the same, in order to specifically show that it is subsequent, even if there is no difference here, it will become an example of the same dharma. When the example of the same dharma cannot show that fire and smoke are the entity of cause and effect, the following itself cannot be established, and if the entity itself has not been established, how can the power be established? Whatever is caused by power will not be established unless it is established. Similarly, when the example of different dharmas cannot show that fire and smoke are the entity of cause and effect, since non-existence cannot be established, how can one remember the following? Furthermore, why rely on this to show? Because if this is not the result, there is no following, and if it is not so, because there is no definite connection with other things, it has already been said, and similarly, if there is no negation, if it is not so, if there is no it, why would it not become existence? If you ask this, the gods do not know the time because of joy. It is only because the consciousness of hearing itself does not have the essence of the result that it is said that there is no negation. If you ask by relying on it, why not say it? If you argue, why say that it exists on another basis? To this, what is said here is that for the reason of understanding that which has following and negation, if there is no entity of cause and effect, by showing that there is no it, since the determination of following and negation is the only means, if there is no it, it will not arise, so the consciousness of hearing itself is another thing.
Tibetan
་འབྲས་བུ་ཉིད་དུ་མ་ངེས་པ་ཁོ་ནས་ལྡོག་པ་མེད་པ་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེས་ན་དེ་ལྟར་གཏན་ཚིགས་རྣམ་པ་གསུམ་ཉིད་ཚུལ་གསུམ་དང་ལྡན་བ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གཞུང་གཟུགས་པར་བྱ་བ་འབྲེལ་པ་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས་ཀྱིས་གཉིས་བསྒྲུབས་ནས་གསུམ་པ་ཡང་དེའི་རྩ་བ་ཅན་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གང་གི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་གསུངས་སོ། །ད་ནི་དེའི་ཕྱིར་རྒྱུ་དང་རང་བཞིན་དག་ཅེས་མདོར་སྨོས་པ་དེའི་ཕྱིར་གྱི་སྒྲའི་འབྲེལ་པ་སྒྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དཔེས་རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་འདི་ཁོ་ན་རབ་ཏུ་སྟོན་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་བྱ་བ་གཞན་ནི་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་རྒྱུ་གཞན་མེད་པར་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡང་དེ་ལྟར་མཐོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་བ་ཙམ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཇི་སྐད་བཤད་པའི་ཞེས་སྨོས་སོ། །དེ་གང་གི་དོན་དུ་བསྟན་པ་གང་གིས་འདིར་བརྗོད་མ་ཐག་པ་དེ་རྒྱུ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཅིག་ཡོད་ན་ཞེས་སྨོས་ཏེ་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡོད་ན་གཞན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་རབ་ཏུ་གྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་དོན་འདི་སྐབས་སུ་བབས་པའི་དོན་གྱི་རྒྱུར་མི་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་རབ་ཏུ་གྲུབ་པ་ལ་གཏན་ཚིགས་བཤད་པ་ནི་དེ་མེད་ན་ཞས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་མེད་ན་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་མི་སྲིད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གཏན་ཚིགས་དེའི་ཕྱིར་རྒྱུ་དང་རང་བཞིན་དག་མེད་པ་སྟེ། སྐྱེད་པར་བྱེད་པ་དང་ཁྱབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་མི་དམིགས་པ་ན། འགའ་ཞིག་དགག་པ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བའི་ཡང་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཡིན་ཏེ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དགོངས་པ་འདི་ཡིན་ཏེ་གང་གི་ཕྱིར་རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡོད་ན་དེ་མེད་ན་ལྡོག་པའི་ཕྱིར་གཞན་ཡོད་ན་གཞན་ཡོད་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེས་ན་འདི་ཇི་ལྟར་བསྒྲུབ་པའི་ཡན་ལག་ཡིན་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དགག་པ་ལ་ཡང་ཡིན་ཏེ་ ལྡོག་ན་ལྡོག་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པའི་རྩ་བས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་ན་ཡོད་པར་ཡང་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེས་ན་ལྡོག་ན་ལྡོག་པར་བྱེད་པ་རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེས་ན་དཔེས་ཉེ་བར་བསྟན་པ་ན་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཀྱི་ཡན་ལག་མ་ཡིན་ཡང་གང་ཞིག་དགག་པར་འདོད་པ་དེ་བཀག་པ་ཡང་རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་ལ་བརྟེན་པ་ཁོ་ནས་རྟོགས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཇི་ལྟར་གང་ཞིག་གང་དུ་རང་བཞིན་འབྲེལ་པ་ལྡོག་ན་འབྲེལ་པའི་ཡུལ་གྱི་དོན་ཉེ་བར་གནས་པ་ལས་མི་འདའ་པས་ན་དེ་སྒྲུབ་པའི་གཏན་ཚིགས་འབྲེལ་པའི་རྩ་བ་ཅན་ཡིན་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ་འབྲེལ་པའི་རྟེན་ལོག་ན་ཡང་འབྲེལ་པ་ལོག་པའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་ལོག་པས་འབྲེལ་པ་ལྡོག་པ་རྟོགས་པ་ཁོ་ནའོ
Chinese
仅仅因为果不确定，才不会有颠倒。因此，如是，三种理路本身即具足三种相状，为了表明作为论著形体的二种关系，通过二者成立，而第三者也是以其为根本。因为什么之故，等等如是宣说。现在，因此，简略地说“因为原因和自性等”，是为了成立“因此”之语的关联。譬如，唯有此自性关系才能极好地显示，没有其他作用，这是说没有其他原因。为了显示自性关系也如是显现，不仅仅是不存在就不会产生。如是宣说“如是所说”。为了显示那是什么意义，为了显示此处所说之立即就是原因。说“如果一个存在”，如果能成立者存在，那么“其他”即所成立者，是为了极好地成立所成立者。即使那样，因为此义不会成为应时之义的原因，为了极好地成立它而宣说理路，即“如果它不存在”，即如果所成立者不存在，能成立者就不可能存在。因为理路的原因和自性等不存在，即在不能见到产生者和周遍者时，某事物的遮遣也是为了成立的理路，即是为了成立。此意即，因为如果存在自性关系，如果它不存在就会颠倒，如果其他存在，其他就存在，因此，此如何成为成立的支分，同样对于遮遣也是，因为颠倒就会颠倒。如果自性关系的根本不存在，那么存在也不会存在。因此，颠倒就会导致颠倒，因为自性关系是这样的，因此，在用例子来近似显示时，即使不是理路的支分，但凡想要遮遣的，那遮遣也是仅仅依靠自性关系才能理解。如何某事物在某处自性关系颠倒，因为关系的对境之义不会超出邻近存在，因此，它是成立的理路，是关系的根本，同样，如果关系的所依颠倒，那么关系也会颠倒，因为它的颠倒，关系也会颠倒，仅仅是理解而已。
English
It is only because the result is uncertain that there will be no reversal. Therefore, in this way, the three types of reasoning themselves possess the three aspects, in order to show that the two relationships that form the body of the treatise are established through the two, and that the third is also rooted in them. For what reason, and so on, is spoken in this way. Now, therefore, to briefly say "because of cause and nature, etc.," is to establish the connection of the word "because." For example, only this relationship of nature can be shown very well, there is no other function, this is to say that there is no other cause. In order to show that the relationship of nature also appears in this way, it is not merely that it will not arise if it does not exist. "As has been said" is spoken in this way. In order to show what that meaning is, in order to show that what is said here immediately is the cause. Saying "if one exists," if that which can establish exists, then "the other," which is to be established, is in order to establish the established very well. Even so, because this meaning will not become the cause of the timely meaning, in order to establish it very well, the reasoning is explained, that is, "if it does not exist," that is, if the established does not exist, that which can establish cannot exist. Because the cause and nature of the reasoning, etc., do not exist, that is, when the producer and the pervader cannot be seen, the negation of something is also the reasoning for establishing, that is, for establishing. This meaning is that because if there is a relationship of nature, if it does not exist, it will be reversed, if the other exists, the other exists, therefore, how this becomes a branch of establishment, similarly for negation, because if it is reversed, it will be reversed. If the root of the relationship of nature does not exist, then existence will also not exist. Therefore, reversal will lead to reversal, because the relationship of nature is like this, therefore, when approximating with examples, even if it is not a branch of reasoning, but whatever one wants to negate, that negation is only understood by relying on the relationship of nature. How something in some place reverses the relationship of nature, because the meaning of the object of the relationship does not go beyond being nearby, therefore, it is the reasoning for establishing, it is the root of the relationship, similarly, if the basis of the relationship is reversed, then the relationship will also be reversed, because of its reversal, the relationship will also be reversed, it is only understanding.