English
Then, it was said, "Without a sign." If you doubt, how is it not manifest? It is called "anything" to remember the reason that has been said before. Seeing the difference is not an inference even if there is a sign, because it is not the object of the general aspect, so it is called "difference." If you ask why it is not the object of the general aspect? The answer is that because the connection between it and the sign is not grasped, it is called "general aspect and sign." Seeing the difference is another valid cognition. It is not manifest, because it is not born from the root consciousness. It is also not an inference, because it is not the object of the general aspect. Therefore, it is only another valid cognition. Therefore, the things that can be measured are expressed through the power of that sentence, called "many things can be measured." From the sentence "seeing the difference," what is expressed through power is "even for one," because for the difference, many valid cognitions will intervene, so it is many, which is called suitable for the occasion. For example, seeing the difference is related to the non-existent, or it is distinguished by preventing many, because it is completely cut off by only one. For example, being able to function, for example, seeing the difference, many will not intervene in the things that can be measured, because it is completely cut off by only one, so if it is not a valid cognition, it is like that. If so, is the number of three-one clear, or is the number of three and one expressed clearly, it will not change there, so it is called "one-three." The so-called "eliminating will not change" means that it will only not change. For example, just like the valid cognition of seeing the difference, when talking about having the third boundary, for the word "also" in "even for one," because of the intervention, so "also" is distinguished as a way of reason. If you think how the number of one will not be clear, it is said, "the object is determined." If you think how the number of three will not be clear? It is said, "other things that can be measured." If you ask, just because there are other things that can be measured, the number of three will not be clear, how else can it change? It is said, "color etc." The saying "seeing the difference has also become another valid cognition" is called "also for seeing the difference." The so-called "therefore" is that the object of the difference is certain. If If because it is the object of the difference
Chinese
如果仅仅是现量，那怎么会变成其他的量呢？回答说：是“直接”。如果认为会变成比量，回答说：是“总的”。如果认为一个的数目无法确定，回答说：例如。那里指的是一个的数目清楚。为什么呢？回答说：因为是现量本身。如果认为怎么区分三和一的数目呢？回答说：因为是确定的境。如果认为无论如何都成立了所要的现量，回答说：用讲述的方式。无论如何指的是境是确定的，以及所量是其他的。进入的原因，也就是分别念的联系是：确定进入量。否定众多的分别念是为了遣除而说的。如果说“如果”，那是怀疑反驳。对于显现为不同的，也怀疑为一，因此如果不是重复，那么中间说也是真实的。这个也是指询问颜色无常的自性所量。不混淆矛盾的，指的是“能”这个词所要成立的其他所量清楚，与那个矛盾，有其他的所量，对于那个不混淆，具有二者的自性，能够见到等等，被对方接近，因此这仅仅是理，不是重复。如果因为那个缘故，所有的隐蔽事物。这样不确定的量也已经遣除了，那么这样安排有什么用呢？回答说：因为那个缘故。因此指的是靠近总结，因为存在其他的所量，并且确定一个不进入多个。这里指的是从“如果所量是确定的”开始，到“因为有其他的所量”之间。如同颜色也是无常一样，以总的自性是分别念的境，这样说的是这个过失。如同无常一样，颜色也是总的，因为是分别念的境的缘故，是这个意思。陈述结合的方式是“无常”。因此是因为结合的缘故。如果对于颜色等等的总的，结合无常等等，不会变成事物的法性。
English
If it is only direct perception, how can it become other valid cognitions? The answer is: "Directly." If one thinks it will become inference, the answer is: "Generally." If one thinks that the number of one cannot be determined, the answer is: "For example." There, it refers to the number of one being clear. Why? The answer is: Because it is direct perception itself. If one thinks, how to distinguish the numbers of three and one? The answer is: Because it is a definite object. If one thinks that the desired direct perception is established in any case, the answer is: In the way of explaining. In any case, it refers to the object being definite and the object of measurement being other. The connection of the reason for entering, which is conceptual thought, is: Definitely entering valid cognition. The conceptual thought of negating the many is said for the sake of eliminating. If it says "If," that is doubting refutation. For what appears to be different, there is also doubt about being one, so if it is not repetition, then the intermediate statement is also true. This also refers to the nature of the object of measurement when asking whether color is impermanent. Not confusing the contradictory refers to the fact that the other object of measurement to be established by the word "able" is clear, and that it contradicts that, there is another object of measurement, not confusing that, having the nature of both, being able to see, etc., being approached by the other party, therefore this is only reason, not repetition. If because of that reason, all hidden things. In this way, the uncertain valid cognition has also been eliminated, so what is the use of arranging it like this? The answer is: Because of that reason. Therefore, it refers to the close summary, because there is another object of measurement, and it is certain that one does not enter many. Here, it refers from "If the object of measurement is definite" to "Because there is another object of measurement." Just as color is also impermanent, it is the object of conceptual thought with the nature of the general, saying this is this fault. Just as impermanence is also general, color is also general, because it is the object of conceptual thought, that is the meaning. Stating the way of combining is "impermanent." Therefore, it is because of the combination. If for the general of color etc., impermanence etc. are combined, it will not become the nature of things.
Chinese
如果怀疑说，对于总相的差别，又将如何特别执着和趣入呢？这是“如果”的意思。而“总相”是指颜色等等。 “它的”是指无常等等的自性，也就是体性。如果即使那样，又怎么会不是事物的法呢？如果这样想，就说了“总相”。事物本身像那样特别执着，因为是总相，因此不是事物的法不是，对于它，特别执着和趣入并不相违，这是回答。不是实有的体性，从无常的声音来说，颜色的总相不是事物之外的。为什么呢？因为事物本身像那样已经成立了，确定成立的缘故。如果怀疑说，因为自己的相不显现其他，不相关的分别念如何获得呢？因为自己的相不显现于其他，不相关的分别念不是成立的，如果说不是获得的，那么不是。如果说自己的相从分别念成立也是，那么不应理。因为自己的相本身通过相关的分别念成立，因此是获得的缘故。如果从“总相”到“为什么”之间，因为颜色和无常两者是总相的自性，因此不是事物，这是为了消除怀疑。现在颜色本身不是事物的法，不是事物的自性，那么无常等等也会变成不是事物本身吗？如果这样问，回答说不是不是事物。为什么呢？因为是事物本身。 “像那样”是指安住于分别念的自性中。如果因为事物的自性不显现，事物像那样如何成立呢？就说了“在分别念中”。如果问说，在那里面也是存在的，从哪里知道呢？回答说不是不是事物。为什么呢？因为是从亲身经历自己的相而说的。这不是相对于进行言说的补特伽罗而说的。如果说以他者成立他者是，那么对“如果说”进行解释，就是“如果分别念”。回答说，不是不是成立的。为什么
English
If there is doubt as to how one would particularly cling to and enter into the distinctions of the generalities, it means "if." And "generality" refers to color and so on. "Its" refers to the nature of impermanence and so on, which is the very essence. If even so, how could it not be a dharma of things? If you think so, then "generality" is said. The thing itself is particularly clung to in that way, because it is a generality, therefore it is not that it is not a dharma of things, and it is not contradictory to particularly cling to and enter into it, this is the answer. It is the nature of non-existence, from the sound of impermanence, the generality of color is not other than the thing. Why? Because the thing itself has been established in that way, because it is definitely established. If you doubt that because one's own characteristic does not appear to others, how can an unrelated conceptualization obtain it? Because one's own characteristic does not appear to others, an unrelated conceptualization is not established, if you say it is not obtained, then it is not. If you say that one's own characteristic is also established from conceptualization, then it is not reasonable. Because one's own characteristic itself is established through related conceptualization, therefore it is obtained. If from "generality" to "why," because both color and impermanence are the nature of generality, therefore it is not a thing, this is to eliminate doubt. Now, if color itself is not a dharma of things, not the nature of things, then will impermanence and so on also become not the thing itself? If you ask this, the answer is that it is not not a thing. Why? Because it is the thing itself. "Like that" means in the nature of abiding in conceptualization. If because the nature of things does not appear, how is the thing established in that way? Then it is said "in conceptualization." If you ask, from where is it known that it also exists in that? The answer is that it is not not a thing. Why? Because it is said from personally experiencing one's own characteristic. This is not said in relation to the person who makes the statement. If you say that others are established by others, then the explanation of "if you say" is "if conceptualization." The answer is that it is not not established. Why?
Chinese
如果问为什么，回答说这是“通过……”。即使自己的体性不显现，也是因为通过……而关联。宣说这个本身，就是所谓的“真实”。具有不欺骗性，这本身就是能成立。为了消除对于比量与事物关联的遮止的疑虑，回答说“如果……”。回答是“它的习气，与它的事物……”，也就是说，比量的习气，通过作为标志的了知，是因为与周遍的事物相关联。即使与它的习气相关联，但如何与事物相关联呢？”，对于这个问题，回答说“火和木等”。“事物如何存在”的意思是，与非火的自性相违背，那就是原因。什么的原因呢？像那样的标志的心的原因。像那样也是，因为是从非众多和非肉色相违背的自性，不是从存在和树叶等产生。也是标志，因为是果或所周遍。是那些的心的原因。如果认为从中会产生什么错乱呢？因为不是那样，所以对于如实存在的那样的事物，也就是对于境的因，由它产生，也就是由标志产生，会变成有标志者的心。因为通过标志，由它产生，所以会变成相关联。自在等的心不是，因为是相违的。如果即使与事物相关联，但因为它空无显现，那么如何比量是不欺骗的呢？因此说了“因此”。“因此是相关联”，这样关联。“标志和有标志者的心”是指以所要阐述的方式，具有比量的自性者。如果空无显现，那么如何是不欺骗的呢？回答是“从显现本身”。也就是从现量本身。回答“尤其从执著”，也就是从比量。如何呢？回答是“通过进入”。如果无有显现，那么如何不会变成进入呢？回答是“进入是……”。“如果不是那样”，意思是如果比量最初不进入，那么之后现量也不会进入。那么如何现量会进入呢？回答说“最初”。
English
If asked why, the answer is, "It is through..." Even if one's own nature does not appear, it is because of the connection through... To declare this itself is what is called "real." Possessing non-deception is itself what establishes. To dispel doubts about the prevention of inference being related to things, the answer is, "If..." The answer is, "Its habit, with its things..." That is, the habit of inference, known through the sign, is because it is related to the pervasive thing. "Even if it is related to its habit, how does it become related to the thing?" To this question, the answer is, "Fire and wood, etc." "How does the thing become?" means that turning away from the nature of non-fire is the cause. The cause of what? The cause of the mind of such a sign. It is also like that, because it is the nature of turning away from non-multiplicity and non-flesh color, not arising from existence and leaves, etc. It is also a sign because it is a result or something to be pervaded. It is the cause of the minds of those. If one thinks, "What confusion will arise from that?" Because it is not like that, therefore, for such a thing that exists as it is, that is, for the cause of the object, it is produced by it, that is, produced by the sign, it will become the mind of the sign-possessor. Because through the sign, it is produced by it, it will become related. The mind of Ishvara, etc., is not, because it is contradictory. If, even though it is related to the thing, it is empty of appearance, how is inference non-deceptive? Therefore, it is said, "Therefore." "Therefore, it is related," thus related. "Sign and sign-possessor mind" refers to those who possess the nature of inference in the manner to be explained. If it is empty of appearance, how is it non-deceptive? The answer is, "From appearance itself." That is, from direct perception itself. The answer, "Especially from attachment," is also from inference. How so? The answer is, "Through entering." If there is no appearance, how will it not become entering? The answer is, "Entering is..." "If it is not like that" means that if inference does not enter first, then later direct perception will not enter. Then how will direct perception enter? The answer is, "First."