Chinese
所谓“是”是指以显现各异之名、成立各异之事物。总的来说，将“各异”之义用于语境中，也称为“所要成立之事各异”。为了概括依赖于二者的不定性，另一种解释是“或者”。事物是指木材本身和火。非事物是指以瓶子空虚之处所推测的自性之分别念，对于所接近的二者，以其事物本身接近，对于无有传递之因等各异之处，从依赖于分别念的各异性出发，则是无有等各异之境。如果说从一般事物的接近者而言，果和自性的理证如何各异呢？答：说是“二事物”。因为如此这般三种理证聚集，所以说是“二者”。如果说以自性而言，则不是事物的所依，因为不显现之故。如果显现是变化，那么就会变成一般事物，如此说：如果说是事物的所依。届时事物会被了解，而非无事物的总体会了解。变化也是，因此它不仅仅是事物，这是它的意思。如果说仅仅执持事物也会变成它的果，答：说是“事物关联之故”。再次，为了迎接分别念靠近依赖事物的方面之疑虑，如果说具有分别念的知识依赖于事物，那么届时会了解事物自己的体性，而非无事物。为什么呢？答：说是“事物关联之故”。两种解释的意思都是：依赖于自性事物的，那是具有事物之境，例如现量一般。分别念的分别识也依赖于事物。答：不是。说是“已作答复之故”。以某种方式，对于识，因为那事物不显现之故，并且仅仅以知识的作用也是不行的，并且如果自性显现，那么根
English
That which is called "is" refers to the various entities established with different names of appearances. In general, applying the meaning of "different" to the context is also called "the things to be established are also different." To summarize the uncertainty that depends on both, another explanation is "or." Things are wood itself and fire. Non-things are the self-nature of conceptualization inferred from the space empty of a vase. For the two that are approached, they are approached by the very thing itself. For the various aspects such as the absence of a transmitting cause, from the dependence on the difference of conceptualization, they are the various objects such as non-existence. If one asks, from the perspective of approaching a general thing, how are the reasonings of effect and nature different? The answer is: It is said to be "two things." Because the three types of reasoning gather in this way, it is said to be "both." If one says that by its own nature, it is not dependent on things, because it does not appear. If appearance is change, then it would become a general thing. Thus it is said: If it is said to be dependent on things. At that time, things will be understood, but the general thing without things will not be understood. Change is also, therefore it is not only a thing, that is its meaning. If one says that merely grasping things will also become its effect, the answer is: It is said to be "because things are related." Again, to address the doubt that conceptualization approaches the aspect of depending on things, if one says that knowledge with conceptualization depends on things, then at that time, one will understand the self-nature of things, but not without things. Why? The answer is: It is said to be "because things are related." The meaning of both explanations is: That which depends on the nature of things is that which has the object of things, like direct perception. The consciousness of conceptualization also depends on things. The answer is: No. It is said to be "because an answer has been given." In some way, for consciousness, because that thing does not appear, and also it is not possible to function only with knowledge, and also if self-nature appears, then the faculty
Chinese
为了显示集合没有结果。将会发生。如果认为将会发生，那么因为也能见到知识所缘，所以说过去或未来不是总的。另一种方式是说，也没有总的。虽然依赖于事物，但作为自体特征的对境是不合理的，暂时这样解释是，知识依赖于事物。事物是指自体特征的对境。如果想知道为什么不会改变，那么就是事物的对境本身。然而，正是执持自己的自性。是总的对境。如果这个过失在于事物会改变，那么这个“事物”不是处所的第七格，而是原因的第七格，为了消除这个疑惑，就是“如果事物存在”。这样说了自体特征的对境不合理之后，又说不仅仅是总的对境，就是“如果那个知识”。是分别的识。那时，单独取出“那时”，加上“过去”等等。为什么呢？因为说了“事物”，没有遍及总的自性，是自性。那么如果因为世间的分别而认为过去是对境，那么就说了“对于这个”，是对分别的识。那么如何分别呢？就是“没有事物”。“自己的体性”是指将会执持体性。这样，应当随顺仅仅是错乱地分别。如果想知道这些显示了什么，那么就说了“为了回答”等等。反驳，对于没有总的，不现见的量会进入，以各种方式了知，因为那个事物不显现等等，是说显示。其他人明显想要成立的理由是，依赖于事物的这个。如果分别的识以两种方式产生，那么如何说仅仅依赖于事物呢？为了消除这个疑惑，就是“如果”。因此，所说是事物的法性。
English
In order to show that the collection has no result. It will happen. If it is thought that it will happen, then because the object of knowledge can also be seen, it is said that the past or the future is not general. Another way to say it is that there is no general either. Although it depends on things, it is unreasonable to be the object of self-characteristic, and the temporary explanation is that knowledge depends on things. Things refer to the object of self-characteristic. If you want to know why it will not change, then it is the object of things itself. However, it is precisely holding one's own nature. It is a general object. If this fault lies in the fact that things will change, then this "thing" is not the seventh case of the place, but the seventh case of the reason, in order to eliminate this doubt, it is "if things exist". After saying that the object of self-characteristic is unreasonable, it is also said that it is not only the general object, that is, "if that knowledge". It is the discriminating consciousness. At that time, take out "at that time" separately, and add "past" and so on. Why? Because it is said that "things" do not pervade the general nature, it is nature. Then if it is thought that the past is the object because of the world's discrimination, then it is said "for this", it is the discriminating consciousness. Then how to discriminate? It is "no things". "One's own nature" means that it will hold the nature. In this way, one should follow the discrimination that is only confused. If you want to know what these show, then it is said "in order to answer" and so on. Refuting, for the absence of the general, the non-appearing measure will enter, knowing in various ways, because that thing does not appear, etc., is saying to show. The reason that others obviously want to establish is this that depends on things. If the discriminating consciousness arises in two ways, then how to say that it only depends on things? In order to eliminate this doubt, it is "if". Therefore, what is said is the dharma nature of things.
Tibetan
་ཉམས་པའི་དོན་དུའོ། །རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པའི་རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་ནི་རྒྱུད་ནས་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་ལ་བརྟེན་པ་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །དེ་ཤེས་ཞེས་བྱ་བར་འདིར་ངེས་པར་བཟུང་བ་བརྗོད་པར་འདོད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བཤད་པ་ནི། དེ་ནི་ཤེས་པ་ཉིད་ཅེས་བྱ་བའོ། །ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྒྲས་ནི་སྤྱི་དམིགས་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་པ་འགོག་པའོ། །དེ་ཉིད་བརྗོད་པ་ནི་དེ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྟེ། རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པའི་རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་ལའོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་དམིགས་པ་མེད་པ་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན། སྤྱི་ཞེས་སྨོས་ཏེ། གཙོ་བོ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལྟར་མཚན་མའི་ཡུལ་མ་ཡིན་པའོ། །འདི་ལྟར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པའོ། །རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཁོ་ན་ཚད་མའི་ཡུལ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་གཞལ་བྱ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པ་ནི་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་གཅིག་ཅེས་བྱ་བའོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། སྤྱི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །འོ་ན་གང་གཞལ་བྱ་ཡིན་སྙམ་ན། དོན་དམ་པར་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །གལ་ཏེ་དངོས་པོ་ལ་ཤེས་པ་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ཡིན་ན་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་སྣང་བ་མངོན་སུམ་དང་སྤྱིའི་མཚན་ཉིད་སྣང་བ་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའོ། །དེ་སྐད་དུ་ཡང༌། གཞལ་བྱ་གཉིས་ཕྱིར་ཚད་མ་གཉིས། །ཞེས་བཤད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ན་གཅིག་ཁོ་ནར་ཇི་ལྟར་འགྱུར་སྙམ་ན། དེ་ཉིད་ཡོད་པ་དང་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ལ་ཡང་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཁོ་ན་དཔྱད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་གྱི། སྤྱི་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་གང་ལས་ཞེས་བྱ་བས་དོགས་པ་བསུ་བ་ནས་དེ་ལས་གྲུབ་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་ལན་འདེབས་པ་སྟེ་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ལས་སོ། །རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཁོ་ན་ཐུན་མོང་དུ་མཚོན་པ་ན་སྤྱིའི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་སྣང་བ་ཐ་དད་པའི་སྒོ་ནས་གཞལ་བྱ་གཉིས་སུ་འཐད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཁོ་ན་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པར་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་དཔྱོད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རྣམ་པར་དཔྱོད་པའི་བདག་ཉིད་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འཛིན་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །རྟོག་པ་དང་ལྡན་པ་དག་ནི་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པ་གཏན་ལ་དབབ་པའི་དོན་དུ་ཚད་མ་དཔྱོད་པའི་བསྟན་བཅོས་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པ་ནི། དོན་བྱ་བ་བྱེད་པའི་དངོས་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རང་ གི་མཚན་ཉིད་དོན་དུ་གཉེར་ན་འོ་ན་ཚད་མ་བཙལ་བས་ཅི་སྙམ་ན། ཚད་མ་ཚོལ་བ་ཡང་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་དོ། །དེ་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་རྟོགས་པའི་དོན་དུ་མ་ཡིན་པའོ། །གང་གི་ཕྱིར་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་རྟོགས་པའི་དོན་དུ་ཚད་མ་ཚོལ་བ་དེའི་
Chinese
是为了不退转之义。分别的识，是从相续中依于自相之自性而说，是这个意思。所谓“彼识”，在此是说想要表达确定把握。所说“彼是识性”，自性之语遮止了是总相所缘。说彼性，即是“于彼”，即于分别之识。为何无所缘？说“总相”，如主等，非是相之境。所谓“如此”，是为了显明。唯有自相是量之境，故说为可量，即是说自相唯一。为何？说“总相”是也。那么什么才是可量呢？说“真实中”。如果识性进入事物，则自相显现是现量，总相显现是比量。如是说：“可量二故，量亦二。”如是宣说的。那么如何成为唯一呢？说“彼性存在”。比量中也唯有自相是应观察的，总相则不是。所谓“从何”，是从迎接疑问，到回答“从彼成立”，即是从自相。唯有自相共同显现时，才是总相。即使如此，从显现不同的角度，作为二种可量也是合理的。唯有自相在比量中是观察存在与不存在的，因为是分别之自性。是“非执著”之义。具有分别者，是为了确定自相存在与不存在，而造量论，是说“成办义之事物”。如果寻求自相，那么寻求量有什么用呢？说“寻求量也是”，即是自相。所谓“若非如此”，即不是为了证悟自相之义。因为什么缘故，为了证悟自相之义而寻求量呢？
English
It is for the sake of non-regression. The consciousness of discrimination is said to rely on the nature of its own characteristics from the continuum, which is the meaning of this. The so-called "that consciousness" here is said to want to express a definite grasp. What is said, "that is the nature of consciousness," the word 'nature' prevents it from being a general object of focus. Saying 'that nature' is 'to that,' that is, to the consciousness of discrimination. Why is there no object of focus? It is said "general characteristic," like the chief, etc., it is not an object of characteristics. The so-called "like this" is to clarify. Only its own characteristics are the object of valid cognition, therefore it is said to be measurable, that is, to say that its own characteristics are unique. Why? It is said "general characteristic" is also. Then what is measurable? It is said "in reality." If the nature of consciousness enters into things, then the appearance of its own characteristics is direct perception, and the appearance of general characteristics is inference. Thus it is said: "Because there are two measurable objects, there are also two valid cognitions." This is how it is declared. Then how does it become unique? It is said "that nature exists." In inference, only its own characteristics are to be examined, not the general characteristics. The so-called "from what" is from welcoming the question, to answering "it is established from that," that is, from its own characteristics. Only when its own characteristics are commonly manifested are they general characteristics. Even so, from the perspective of different appearances, it is reasonable to be two kinds of measurable objects. Only its own characteristics are examined in inference as existing or not existing, because it is the nature of discrimination. It is the meaning of "non-grasping." Those who have discrimination make treatises on valid cognition in order to determine the existence or non-existence of their own characteristics, which is to say "things that accomplish meaning." If you seek your own characteristics, then what is the use of seeking valid cognition? It is said "seeking valid cognition is also," that is, its own characteristics. The so-called "if it is not like this" means it is not for the sake of realizing its own characteristics. For what reason do you seek valid cognition for the sake of realizing your own characteristics?