Chinese
关联是与知者相关联，认为是境与有境的关联。成立的宗义是这样认为的：某物与某物亲近结合，并且境与有境本身就是关联，如眼对于色。亲近结合也是从常的角度来考虑的，因为没有错谬。然而，所谓“彼”，是“义”的剩余。指示“这也是”的是“如何”。因为义自身显现，所以说“彼见”是第三者的意义错乱的缘故。其他仅仅是随行，就成立了“彼见”，即“如果那样存在”。自在是如果存在知，那么那样它就变成义显明的自性，因此如果说自在彼见，那么即使虚空等存在，也有易见性。自在如何是见者本身？如果因为存在的意愿，虚空等也会变化，因此它们也会变成见者。所谓“于空”，是其他的。时间和方位等也应近似地表示。那个义是见的彼。指示它的是名。成立的宗义是说指示的词，而且那也是从自在那里来的，不是从虚空等来的，从何处希望？如果认为因为虚空没有知，所以词不是从那里来的，那么就像自在一样，聚集是可能的，为什么不认为虚空等有知？如果那样，那么它本身就变成自在了，如果认为因为不合理，所以不会变成不同的义，那不是的，因为虚空等没有被认为是与自在不同的，因此是荒谬的。这样，在显示了驳斥其他安立的方式后，就像自在一样，虚空等也不能对词的因本身的事物进行思辨，因为以常性本身没有退转的缘故，所以是事物近似的集合，即“完全”。指示这也要以信心来理解一切智者，即所谓“何义”。这不是过去，因为一部分是过去。同样，也不是未来。总的意义是什么，它如何变得清晰？
English
The connection is related to the knower, and it is thought that the connection is between the object and the subject. The established tenet is considered as follows: something is closely connected with something, and the object and the subject themselves are the connection, like the eye to the form. The close connection is also considered from the perspective of permanence, because there is no error. However, the so-called "that" is the remainder of "meaning." Indicating "this also" is "how." Because the meaning itself manifests, saying "that sees" is because the meaning of the third person is confused. Others merely follow, and it is established that "that sees," that is, "if it exists like that." Freedom is if there is knowledge, then it becomes the nature of meaning manifestation, so if it is said that freedom sees, then even if space and so on exist, there is ease of seeing. How is freedom itself the seer? If because of the desire to exist, space and so on will also change, therefore they will also become seers. The so-called "in space" is other. Time and direction, etc., should also be approximated. That meaning is the that of seeing. What indicates it is the name. The established tenet is to say the indicating word, and that also comes from freedom, not from space, etc. From where is it hoped? If it is thought that because space has no knowledge, the word does not come from there, then like freedom, gathering is possible, why not think that space, etc., have knowledge? If so, then it itself becomes freedom, if it is thought that because it is unreasonable, it will not become a different meaning, that is not the case, because space, etc., are not considered different from freedom, therefore it is absurd. In this way, after showing the refutation of other established ways, just like freedom, space, etc., cannot speculate on the cause of the word itself, because there is no turning back with permanence itself, so it is an approximate collection of things, that is, "completely." Indicating that this must also be understood with faith by the all-knowing, that is, the so-called "what meaning." This is not the past, because a part is the past. Likewise, it is not the future either. What is the general meaning, how does it become clear?