Chinese
就像我们想要通过（某事物）的特性来认识具有该特性的事物一样，我们也同样要论证，通过与特性相关的自性，我们才能认识各种特性。因为具有相关性的自性，所以仅凭一方面无法认识具有特性的事物，这才是认识具有特性的事物的方式。同样，仅仅了解各种特性，也因为与具有特性的事物具有相关性的自性，所以从不完全的认识中，会引发对具有特性的事物的认识。因此，如果通过一个特性来了解它的含义，那么就会陷入了解所有特性的谬误。对方辩称，通过思维来把握具有各种特性的事物，按照这种说法，通过抓住（一个）特性，就会陷入抓住所有特性的谬误。因此，因为不存在抓住特性而空无的具有特性的事物，所以如果抓住它，怎么会变成抓住一切呢？从抓住所有特性而来抓住它，那么就不会有任何不愿接受的，在迎接这种疑问之后，就阐述了“因为它们与自性相关”等。因为安住于与自性相关，所以两者都是相关的，这样一来，如果抓住一个，就会引发以另一个为对象的认识。因此，无论通过何种方法，一旦认识了具有特性的事物，就会抓住特性，这就是说，如果抓住所有特性，那么抓住它就没有争议了。因此，通过一个特性，从对它的认识接触到未认识的特性，就会陷入认识所有特性的谬误，这是为了阐明这个道理。因此，不必怀疑重复。即使辅助的事物被认为是无差别的，但差别性的特性却不是，即使这样怀疑，再次仅仅显示没有差别性的关联也是不合理的，因为之前已经陈述过了。除此之外，再没有什么可说的了。因此，这个道理要么之前已经成立，要么现在仍然不成立。“特性和……”等是注释。解释为了什么而安排这些，就是“那个通过一个特性”。在辅助特性的同时，如果认识了具有特性的事物，那么，两个经部
English
Just as we want to understand something with characteristics through its characteristics, we similarly argue that through the nature related to characteristics, we can understand all kinds of characteristics. Because of the nature of relatedness, it is impossible to understand something with characteristics through only one aspect, and this is how to understand something with characteristics. Similarly, even if we only understand various characteristics, because of the nature of relatedness with something with characteristics, from incomplete understanding, it will lead to the understanding of something with characteristics. Therefore, if we understand its meaning through one characteristic, then we will fall into the fallacy of understanding all characteristics. The opponent argues that grasping something with various characteristics through thought, according to this statement, by grasping (one) characteristic, we will fall into the fallacy of grasping all characteristics. Therefore, because there is no such thing as something with characteristics that is empty of grasping characteristics, how can grasping it become grasping everything? From grasping all characteristics to grasping it, then there will be nothing unwilling to accept, after welcoming this question, it is explained that "because they are related to the nature," etc. Because it abides in relation to the nature, both are related, so if we grasp one, it will lead to the understanding of the other as the object. Therefore, no matter what method is used, once we understand something with characteristics, we will grasp the characteristics, that is to say, if we grasp all the characteristics, then there is no dispute in grasping it. Therefore, through one characteristic, from the understanding of it touching the unrecognized characteristics, we will fall into the fallacy of understanding all characteristics, this is to clarify this principle. Therefore, there is no need to suspect repetition. Even if the assisting thing is considered undifferentiated, but the differential characteristic is not, even if we suspect this, it is unreasonable to show only the undifferentiated relationship again, because it has been stated before. There is nothing more to say than this. Therefore, this principle has either been established before, or it is still not established now. "Characteristics and..." etc. are annotations. Explaining why these are arranged is "that through one characteristic." While assisting the characteristics, if we understand something with characteristics, then, the two sutras