English
It is not so. Because an obstacle is not a real thing. If it is said that it should not be examined as being that or this, then what is called an obstacle that does not cause the agent to arise? Non-existence is not made by a real thing. Since an obstacle is an action, it is a real thing, and what it does is to cause falling. Because whatever obstacle to falling is made by the one who abides in that falling, that is, the falling that is made is not different from that. Because if it is a different entity, then that real thing called an obstacle to falling, the one who abides is connected with it, therefore, it has not made an obstacle to falling, because the nature of the Dharma of going is unchanging. For the obstacle made by the one who abides, it is also similar to refute and examine the acceptance of falling. What is it like? Even if it has been done, because the difference that has become the nature of the one who practices the Dharma has neither disappeared nor arisen. Then, why doesn't it fall? This is such a refutation and examination. With what nature will it fall? That is the same now, why doesn't it fall? Or, is there a difference established for the falling thing from the real thing called an obstacle? If that is the case, then it is not just an obstacle, because that difference is also a different entity, so the real thing is the nature of that which does not fall. Even if different differences are made, because the nature of the Dharma of falling is still in that state, it will fall. Or, if the difference made by the obstacle also makes other differences, then it will become endless. Then, is it the obstacle that has become the nature of the one who practices the Dharma of falling? The answer is, other Dharmas that do not fall become such a nature, then it is not admitted as an obstacle, because if it makes not falling, it will become a producer. Therefore, if the opposite of falling is an obstacle, then it is not just able to do it. Therefore, by making non-existence, it will also become a statement of the non-real thing maker. Because something called non-existence does not exist. Therefore,
Chinese
说“不做堕落”的这句话，实际上就变成了阻止事物作用的意思。如果说没有的事物没有作用，那又如何呢？因此说了“如某些方式”这句话，如果说是差别或非差别的作用，那么事物不存在就不合理了。作用是普遍存在的，而对于不存在的事物也有作用。因此，那就是事物本身。事物也是做它自己的自性。如果是其他，那么就会像之前一样，因为有堕落或没有穷尽的过失，所以说不存在的事物，并不是说有一些作用。阻止事物的行为，就变成了表达事物不做的意思。因此，使之安住的原因不是使之堕落，因为堕落没有能力，所以应该这样清楚地表达，这也是所希望的。因为堕落的那个堕落，不是由使之安住的那个所做的，因为是堕落的法性，所以自性是堕落的。例如，抛向空中的土块，虽然凭借臂力上升，但还是会因为自己的本性而堕落。如果那样，那么显现为安住的事物，一点也不做，那又如何是刺柏等的安住者呢？因为没有使之安住者，所以刺柏等这些，没有任何其他事物阻止堕落，因此永远不会安住，就像抛向空中一样。有时也会安住，如果没有自性的差别，那么安住也是不合理的，因此“障碍”这个词，也表达了与使安住的近取因同时同处产生。凡是在近取因的处所产生的，那就是安住，而自己近取因的处所产生，也仅仅存在于事物的刹那中，对于唯一的常法自性来说，是不存在的。因此，水的像那样，是总结了上下文。如果说从什么推断出水鸟是水的呢？回答说：水鸟也是那个水的结果。
English
The statement "does not cause falling" actually becomes the meaning of preventing the action of things. If it is said that a non-existent thing has no action, then how is that? Therefore, the phrase "like some ways" is mentioned. If it is said to be the action of difference or non-difference, then it is unreasonable for a thing not to exist. Action is universally present, and even for non-existent things there is action. Therefore, that is the thing itself. A thing also performs its own nature. If it were other, then it would be like before, because there would be the fault of falling or not being exhausted, so saying that a non-existent thing does not mean that there are some actions. Preventing the action of things becomes expressing the meaning of things not acting. Therefore, the cause of abiding is not causing falling, because falling has no power, so it should be clearly expressed in this way, and that is also what is desired. Because the falling of that falling is not done by that which causes it to abide, because it is the nature of falling, so the nature is falling. For example, a clod thrown into the sky, although it rises by the power of arm strength, it will still fall because of its own nature. If that is the case, then how can that which appears to abide and does not do anything be the abider of junipers and so on? Because there is no one who causes it to abide, therefore these junipers and so on, no other thing prevents falling, therefore they will never abide, just like being thrown into the sky. Sometimes they will abide, and if there is no difference in nature, then abiding is also unreasonable, therefore the word "obstacle" also expresses the simultaneous and co-located arising with the proximate cause of causing abiding. Whatever arises in the place of the proximate cause, that is abiding, and arising in the place of one's own proximate cause only exists in the moments of things, but for the nature of the single constant dharma, it does not exist. Therefore, the water is like that, which summarizes the context. If it is said, from what is it inferred that the water bird is of water? The answer is: the water bird is also the result of that water.
Chinese
哦！为什么呢？水鸟的居住停留是因为执着于水。解释这个就是，因为水鸟的居住依赖于水，所以身体安住在水中，由于与那果的自性相关联，所以可以推断出水。与那些依赖于处所等来理解的特点并非没有关系。春季的时候，在许多帕廓（长度单位）范围内完全 干涸无水，是悲伤尽头的处所的特点。水鸟的身体自由自在，没有衰败地存在，是暂时的特点。夏季是因为水源充足，所以在所有地方都能居住。在有水的地方，有些人认为想要死去，或者受制于人，即使没有水也能居住。因此，具有特点的就是标志。如果从水鸟推断出水，那么所立宗的法是什么？就是水鸟本身。这个水鸟与水相关联，因为是水鸟，这是具有特点的法，也是普遍的理由。像这样，从烟推断出火也是同样的道理。说“这个地方有火，因为有烟”是不对的。这被认为是自性果的理由，因为可以推断出原因。例如，眼识是无常的，因为依赖于其他原因，虽然自性本身需要被证明，但因为可以推断出原因，所以这被认为是果的理由，所有的果理由都是如此。如果不是这样，如果认为处所是所立宗的法，那么在看到烟的地方就没有火，而有火的地方也没有烟，因此理由会变成基础不同的情况，这是某些人的观点。那么，如果正量没有作为对象的、与水相关的地点，在寻求意义时，就不会涉及水鸟。没有作为对象又是什么意思呢？因为与所见和推断的水鸟和水是不同的方向。如果说因为没有基础的水是不允许的，所以处所包含在水的范围内，虽然包含，但是什么
English
Oh! Why is that? The dwelling and staying of waterbirds is because of their attachment to water. The explanation of this is that because the dwelling of waterbirds depends on water, their bodies reside in the water, and because they are related to the nature of that fruit, water can be inferred. It is not unrelated to the characteristics that are understood in relation to places and so on. In the spring, when it is completely dried up and without water for many pagtsads (a unit of length), it is a characteristic of the place at the end of sorrow. The body of the waterbird is free and without decay, and its existence is a temporary characteristic. In summer, because there is plenty of water, they can live in all places. In places where there is water, some think of wanting to die, or being subject to others, and they can live even without water. Therefore, that which has characteristics is a sign. If water is inferred from waterbirds, then what is the subject of the proposition? It is the waterbird itself. This waterbird is related to water, because it is a waterbird, this is a characteristic dharma, and it is also a universal reason. In this way, inferring fire from smoke is also the same principle. It is not correct to say, "This place has fire because it has smoke." This is considered a reason of self-nature fruit, because the cause can be inferred. For example, eye consciousness is impermanent, because it depends on other causes, although self-nature itself needs to be proven, but because the cause can be inferred, this is considered a reason of fruit, and this is the case for all fruit reasons. If it is not like that, if the place is considered the subject of the proposition, then there is no fire where smoke is seen, and where there is fire, there is no smoke, therefore the reason will become a case with different bases, this is the view of some. Then, if a place related to water that has not been made an object by valid cognition is sought for meaning, it will not involve waterbirds. What does it mean to not be made an object? Because it is a different direction from the seen and inferred waterbirds and water. If it is said that because water without a basis is not allowed, the place is included in the scope of water, although it is included, but what
Chinese
就像牧童的容器里的烟，以及山谷中不确定的孔雀叫声，如果能确定其来源，或者能确定火和孔雀的存在，那么在这里也能如此理解，就能进入对境的确定。从眼识推断出的眼，虽然不是对境的确定，但对境的差别仅仅来自于其他的量。作为理由的根据也并非不同，因为与烟相关的显现之处本身就不是有法。那么是什么呢？是对显现的自性进行观察，并从一些原因中认识到其存在，或者回忆起先前所见，无论如何，都是量所认知的集合。看到一部分，并推断其他部分的集合才是有法，而不仅仅是看到的部分。就像在被黑暗完全包围和遮蔽的房间里，如果无法看到灯的光芒，就能知道整个房间里没有灯，并且也能知道该知识缺少灯的光芒。先前看到、闻到或触摸到的知识，以及与此相关的房屋内部的所有部分，都是有法。这也就说明了从结果的缺失可以确定声音的缺失。对于集合自性的有法确定，也应该从烟中推断出某个地方有火。要证明某个地方存在或不存在的有法，那是因为火的本体和烟的本体，以及通过间接方式作为原因，所以要证明的事物和能证明的事物，其基础是相同的。所谓的基础，并不存在与原因不同的东西。因此，与烟相关的处所，以及与火相关的处所，才是有法，因为两者都对烟的延续有所帮助。在对结果的理由进行分析时， 论师通过“处所也是烟吗”等论述，说明有法处所和烟是因果关系，这是因为其他人没有理解，所以是恶劣的自相矛盾。像这样稍微看到能区分的显现之后。
English
Just like the smoke from a shepherd's container, and the uncertain sound of a peacock in the valley, if one can determine its source, or can determine the existence of fire and a peacock, then understanding it in the same way here will lead to the determination of the object. The eye inferred from eye consciousness, although not a determination of the object, the difference of the object comes solely from other valid cognitions. The basis for the reason is also not different, because the appearing aspect related to smoke itself is not the subject of debate (paksha). So what is it? It is observing the nature of appearance and recognizing its existence from some causes, or remembering what was seen before, in any case, it is the collection cognized by valid cognition. The collection of seeing one part and inferring other parts is the subject of debate, not just the part that is seen. Just as in a room completely surrounded and covered by darkness, if the light of a lamp cannot be seen, it can be known that there is no lamp in the entire room, and it can also be known that the knowledge is devoid of the light of the lamp. All parts of the house that are close to the knowledge that has been previously seen, smelled, or touched are the subject of debate. This also explains that the absence of sound can be determined from the absence of result. For the determination of the subject of debate that is the nature of a collection, it should also be proven from smoke that there is fire in one place. The subject of debate that is to prove the existence or non-existence of one place is because the entity of fire itself and the entity of smoke, and indirectly as the cause, so the thing to be proven and the thing that proves it have the same basis. The so-called basis does not exist as something different from the cause. Therefore, the place related to smoke, and the place related to fire, are the subject of debate, because both help the continuation of smoke. When analyzing the reason for the result, the teacher, through statements such as "Is the place also smoke?" explains that the subject of debate, the place, and smoke are the relationship of cause and effect, because others have not understood, so it is a bad self-contradiction. After seeing a little bit of the distinguishing appearance like this.