Chinese
哦，如果是这样，那么就说了“然而”。所谓“应显示之物”，是指用定义可以理解的事物，如果不用定义的词语来显示，就会出错。即使不显示“应显示之物”，但如果说出过失，那就是指显示“应被证明之物”。所谓“什么”，是指应被证明之物或证明者。对于第二种情况的陈述，就是“然而”。在那种情况下，也会变得不知道如何显示。如果有关联，那为什么呢？因为没有显示“作为证明者”或“作为应被证明之物”的情况。向持已成立宗派的其他人提问，就是“如何呢？”。其他人的回答就是“第五”。或者，从第一个分类中，除了第一个之外，通过“因为有烟，所以有烟”来显示，所显示的那个就是显示为证明者，应该这样说。如果说“声音是无常的”，那么首先要显示的那个就是应被证明之物，如果这样说，那么持已成立宗派的其他人就会问“从哪里来的？”。对方，即立论者，会说“因此，声音的意义”。回答是“如果”。为什么呢？因为是“应被证明之物”。如果说连“然而”这一方的定义也不应该说，那就是“一方的”。无论哪种情况，为了避免必须确定的过失，所以说“因此”。说“没有意义”是因为在世间已经成立了。像这样，“显示应被证明之物就是承诺”，在这里，显示应被证明之物是不确定的，而承诺则是在世间广为人知的。对于“显示应被证明之物就是承诺”的定义来说，显示应被证明之物对于承诺是确定的，而承诺对于显示应被证明之物是不确定的。因此，看起来像证明者的东西也会变成承诺。所谓“您”，是指辩论获胜的一方。回答是“证明者”。所谓“如果”，是指迎接疑问。即使是成为证明者的应被证明之物的显示，也会变成一百个承诺。
English
Oh, if that's the case, then it is said, "However." What is meant by "that which should be shown" is that which can be understood by definition; if it is not shown by the words of definition, it will be mistaken. Even if "that which should be shown" is not shown, but if a fault is stated, then it refers to showing "that which is to be proven." What is meant by "what" is that which is to be proven or the prover. The statement for the second case is "however." In that case, it will also become unknown how to show it. If there is a connection, why is that? Because the situation of "as the prover" or "as that which is to be proven" is not shown. Asking others who hold an established tenet is "how is it then?" The answer from others is "the fifth." Or, from the first division, except for the first, it is shown by "because there is smoke, there is smoke," that which is shown is shown as the prover, that should be stated. If it is said, "sound is impermanent," then that which should be shown first is that which is to be proven, if it is said like that, then others who hold an established tenet will ask, "from where does that come?" The opponent, the logician, will say, "therefore, the meaning of sound." The answer is "if." Why is that? Because it is "that which is to be proven." If it is said that even the definition of the "however" side should not be stated, then it is "of the side." In either case, to avoid the fault of having to determine, therefore it is said, "therefore." Saying "without meaning" is because it is already established in the world. Like this, "showing that which is to be proven is a commitment," here, showing that which is to be proven is uncertain, while commitment is certainly well-known in the world. For the definition of "showing that which is to be proven is a commitment," showing that which is to be proven is certain for commitment, while commitment is uncertain for showing that which is to be proven. Therefore, even that which appears like a prover will become a commitment. What is meant by "you" refers to the side that has won the debate. The answer is "prover." What is meant by "if" is welcoming doubt. Even the showing of that which is to be proven that has become a prover will become a hundred commitments.
Chinese
那么，深刻消除疑惑的原因是什么呢？回答是，正是因为种类不同才是消除疑惑的原因。像这样进行论证，所要阐述的教义和所要论证的事物，阐述教义是因为论证者本身是或者不是种类不同，因此就不会产生疑惑。阐述这个道理就是像这样。所谓“种类相同”，意思是指对于种类不同的事物，疑惑是不会产生的。对方所说的完全普遍存在，就是要了解这一点。瓶子是就产生它的原因而言，是所要论证的事物。因此，阐述它并不是一种承诺，这是已成立宗派的我的回答。阐述这个道理就是“如果那样”。辩论时所说的就是“如果其他”。如果不是论证者，但看起来像是论证者，也会成为一种承诺吗？回答是，因为不是论证者。对论证的各个方面进行解释就是“如果”。“然而”到“如果”之间是辩论。回答是“如果”。“承诺是”是指疑惑，眼睛所能感知的就是一种承诺，而“声音不是无分别的”这个第二个承诺，将不会成为论证者。因此，如果不是论证者，那么未成立的自性就是过失吗？回答是“论证者”。如果承诺本身就是眼睛所能感知的，那么在这种情况下，怎么会不是论证者呢？自己的意义就是自己所要表达的，即“因为眼睛能感知”这句话所要表达的是，眼睛所能感知的事物本身就是因为眼睛能感知，所以才是论证者，这就是这个道理。 “不是的”是回答。仅仅是词句本身并不是论证者，但是，带有表达内容的词句才是论证者。如果不是这样，那么仅仅是“烟”这个词句就会成为论证者，而烟本身则不是。因此，所要表达的是与眼睛所能感知的事物本身相关联的。是眼睛所能感知的。
English
So, what is the reason for deeply eliminating doubt? The answer is that it is precisely because of the difference in kind that is the reason for eliminating doubt. To argue in this way, the doctrine to be expounded and the thing to be argued, expounding the doctrine is because the arguer himself is or is not of a different kind, therefore there will be no doubt. To explain this principle is like this. The so-called "same kind" means that for things of different kinds, doubt will not arise. What the other party says is completely universal, is to understand this point. The vase is, in terms of the cause of its production, the thing to be argued. Therefore, explaining it is not a commitment, this is the answer of my established sect. To explain this principle is "if so". What is said in the debate is "if other". If it is not an arguer, but looks like an arguer, will it also become a commitment? The answer is, because it is not an arguer. Explaining the various aspects of the argument is "if". "However" to "if" is the debate. The answer is "if". "The commitment is" refers to doubt, what the eye can perceive is a commitment, and the second commitment "sound is not non-conceptual" will not become an arguer. Therefore, if it is not an arguer, then is the unestablished nature a fault? The answer is "arguer". If the commitment itself is what the eye can perceive, then in this case, how can it not be an arguer? One's own meaning is what one wants to express, that is, what the sentence "because the eye can perceive" wants to express is that the thing that the eye can perceive itself is because the eye can perceive, so it is an arguer, this is the reason. "No" is the answer. Merely the words themselves are not arguers, but the words with the content to be expressed are arguers. If it is not like this, then merely the word "smoke" will become an arguer, but smoke itself is not. Therefore, what is to be expressed is related to the thing that the eye can perceive itself. Is what the eye can perceive.
Tibetan
བའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཚིག་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གང་གི་མིག་གིས་གཟུང་བྱ་ཉིད་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ཆོས་ཅན་སྒྲ་ལ་ཚོགས་པ་གྲུབ་པར་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འོ་ན་བདག་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ཡིན་ནོ་སྙམ་ན། དེ་ཉིད་ནི་ཞེས་གསུངས་ཏེ། ཚིག་དང་བཅས་པ་མིག་གིས་གཟུང་བྱའི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་དོན་ཏོ། །རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་བཅས་པའི་མིག་གིས་གཟུང་བྱ་ནི་བདག་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །སྒྲ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཀྱང་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་ནི་སྒྲའི་ཕུར་མ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །མེ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ལ་ཡང་དུ་བ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཚིག་ཙམ་ནི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་མ་ཡིན་གྱི། འོན་ཀྱང་ཕྱི་རོལ་གྱི་དོན་ཉིད་ཡིན་ཏེ། སྒྲ་རྣམས་ཕྱིའི་དོན་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འོ་ན་སྒྲ་གང་གི་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་སྙམ་ན། བསམ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྨོས་སོ། །འོན་ཏེ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་སྒྲ་བསམ་པའི་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་གྱི། འོན་ཀྱང་མེ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ དོན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་དམ་བཅའ་བའི་ཚིག་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་སོ། །དེས་ན་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཀྱི་ཚིག་དོན་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་དགོངས་པའོ། །དེ་ལས་བྱ་བ་ནི་དམ་བཅའ་བའི་ཚིག་ལས་སོ། །གཞན་དག་བརྗོད་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རིགས་པའི་སྒོའི་ཊཱི་ཀ་བྱེད་པའོ། །འོ་ན་ཅི་ལྟར་མ་ངེས་པ་སྤོང་སྙམ་ན་དེ་ནི་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །མ་ངེས་པ་དེའོ། །འདི་ནི་སྔར་བཤད་ཟིན་ཏེ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རང་གི་དོན་གྱི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པར་རོ། །དེ་ཉིད་བརྗོད་པ་ནི་འདོན་བ་ནི་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །འདི་ནི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རིག་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་ཅན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་འདི་ནི་ལན་མ་ཡིན་པའོ། །དེ་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་མི་མཐུན་པའི་ཕྱོགས་དང་མི་འགལ་བའི་བར་ཡང་མི་མཐུན་པའི་ཕྱོགས་ལས་ཟློག་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཁས་ལེན་ན། དེ་ལྟ་བུ་མ་ཡིན་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སུས་བརྗོད་པར་མི་ནུས། འདི་ལྟར་སྒྲ་ནི་མི་རྟག་སྟེ་གཞལ་བྱ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པ་ནི། གལ་ཏེ་ཕ་རོལ་ནམ་མཁས་འཁྲུལ་པར་བརྗོད་ན། དེའི་ཚེ་ནམ་མཁའ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱའོ། །ཡང་ཕྱོགས་ལ་སོགས་པས་འཁྲུལ་བར་བརྗོད་ན། ཕྱོགས་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཞེས་སོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ཡིན་དང་གཞལ་བྱ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དུ་འགྱུར་རོ། །དམ་བཅའ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་མེད་པ་ལ་ཡང་ཉེས་པ་ཅི་ཡོད་སྙམ་ན། དམ་བཅའ་བར་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་པ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའོ། །དེ་ཕྱོགས་ཡིན་ནམ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་གཏན་ཚི
Chinese
为了那个缘故，这句话是成立的。如果眼睛所见的本身成为能立，那么有法，声音，集合成立也是不可能的。如果认为那是自己的能立，那么就说了“那个就是”，连同词语是眼睛所见的相的意义。自己的连同词语的眼睛所见不是自己的能立，这是它的意义。仅仅声音也不是能立，所说的是声音的“普玛”。对于要成立火，仅仅说“有烟的缘故”这句话不是能立，然而却是外境的意义，因为声音和外境没有关联。如果认为声音是哪个的能立，那么就说了“想法”。“然而”的意思是，声音不是想法的能立，然而却是火等等的意义。“那个就是”的意思是，就是立宗的词语。“因此，立宗的词语没有意义”是这样想的。“从那个”的意思是从立宗的词语。“其他人说”的意思是做理门的注释。如果认为要如何遣除不定，那么就说“那个就是”。“不定，那个”。“这在之前已经说过了”的意思是对于自义的比量。“那个就是说”的意思是“发出就是”。“这个”的意思是“因为是有明智的差别，这个不是回答”。“如果不是那样”的意思是，即使对于不相符的方面和不违背的中间，也承诺是从不相符的方面遣除，如果不是那样，谁也不能说。例如，说“声音是无常的，因为是可以衡量的”，如果对方说天空有错，那么那时就要说“不是天空”。又如果用方等来错说，就说“不是方”。如果是那样，可以衡量本身也会变成能立。如果认为没有成立立宗也没有过失，那么就说“对于成立立宗的”。“那是宗吗”的意思是“理由”。
English
For that reason, this statement is established. If what is seen by the eye itself becomes the proof, then it is also impossible for the subject, sound, to have an established collection. If you think that it is your own proof, then it is said, "That is it," along with the words, it is the meaning of the characteristic of what is seen by the eye. What is seen by the eye, along with its own words, is not its own proof, that is its meaning. It is said that sound alone is not a proof, which is called the "Puma" of sound. For the purpose of establishing fire, the mere statement "because there is smoke" is not a proof, but it is the meaning of the external object, because sounds have no connection with external objects. If you think that sound is the proof of which one, then the word "thought" is mentioned. The meaning of "however" is that sound is not the proof of thought, but it is the meaning of fire and so on. "That is it" means the very words of the proposition. "Therefore, the words of the reason are meaningless" is the thought. "From that" means from the words of the proposition. "Others say" means making a commentary on the gate of reasoning. If you think about how to eliminate the uncertain, then it is said, "That is it." "Uncertain, that." "This has already been said before" means for the inference for oneself. "That is what is said" means "to utter is." "This" means "because it has the distinction of being intelligent, this is not an answer." "If it is not so" means that even for the incompatible side and the non-contradictory middle, it is also promised to be removed from the incompatible side, if it is not so, no one can say. For example, saying "sound is impermanent because it is measurable," if the other party says that the sky is wrong, then at that time it should be said "not the sky." Also, if you say it is wrong with direction, etc., say "not direction." If that is the case, the measurable itself will also become a proof. If you think that there is no fault in not establishing the proposition, then it is said, "For the establishment of the proposition." "Is that the subject?" means "reason."