Chinese
像那样进行矛盾的陈述，经典不会造成损害，正因为如此，对于通过教证的见解而广为人知、超越感官的对象来说，存在着矛盾。具有言辞的人所说的损害方式，这在大多数情况下，特别是针对某种想法而言。通过指出言辞之间的矛盾来表达意义，但不会说经典中如何陈述，情况就不是那样。然而，因为说这就是这部经典本身。经典如何对人造成损害呢？又为何会那样想呢？已经提到了“哪部经典”等等。这是指见解，即现量和比量的对象。即使没有可推论的事物，有时也能看到，或者像眼睛一样，因为看到所依而被称为见。眼睛在比量中是能见所立宗。事物之力，即通过量之力进入的一切都不会造成损害，对于不可见的、极其超越感官的领域，不被自己的言辞所损害的经典，应当理解为应当接受，这是为了理解这个意义。这句话的剩余部分是为了理解这个意义而思考的言辞。如果对经典中著名的法，陈述与经典相矛盾的内容，经典会造成损害，那么对于经典中不著名的法，陈述与经典相矛盾的内容，会有什么过失呢？没有任何过失，因为没有接受经典。如果接受了经典，那又如何呢？对于不依赖于经典的事物，即使具有经典的人陈述了矛盾的法，经典也不会造成损害。那会变成什么呢？会变成障碍。像这样，所承诺的经典也是它自己的言辞，这（陈述）也是自己的言辞，因此它们是障碍。为什么呢？因为经典和言辞两者的力量或堆积是相等的。举例说明：例如，自己的言辞是障碍，但不是被损害的事物和造成损害的事物。那时……
English
Like that, making contradictory statements, the scriptures do not cause harm, and precisely because of this, for objects that are well-known through the view of teachings and are beyond the senses, there are contradictions. The way of harming that is stated by those with words, this is mostly, especially in relation to a certain idea. By pointing out the contradiction between words, meaning is expressed, but it is not said that how it is stated in the scriptures is not the case. However, because it is said that this is the scripture itself. How does the scripture cause harm to a person? And why would one think that way? It has been mentioned, "Which scripture," and so on. This refers to the object of view, which is direct perception and inference. Even without something to be inferred, sometimes it is seen, or like the eye, because seeing the basis is called seeing. The eye in inference is the subject that is seen. The power of things, that is, everything that enters through the power of valid cognition does not cause harm, and for the invisible, extremely beyond-sensory realms, the scriptures that are not harmed by their own words, it should be understood that they should be accepted, this is to understand this meaning. The remainder of this statement is the words for thinking in order to understand this meaning. If, for a dharma that is famous in the scriptures, stating something that contradicts the scriptures, the scriptures would cause harm, then for a dharma that is not famous in the scriptures, stating something that contradicts the scriptures, what fault would there be? There is no fault, because the scriptures have not been accepted. If the scriptures have been accepted, then how is it? For things that do not rely on the scriptures, even if someone with scriptures states a contradictory dharma, the scriptures will not cause harm. What will it become? It will become an obstacle. Like this, the promised scripture is also its own words, and this (statement) is also its own words, therefore they are obstacles. Why? Because the power or accumulation of both the scriptures and the words is equal. Giving an example: For example, one's own words are an obstacle, but not the thing that is harmed and the thing that causes harm. At that time...
Chinese
当了知是经由体验而成立的法性时，如果与说话者自己的言辞相违背，那不是论典所造成的损害。论典因为已经承诺，所以与自己的言辞相同。在任何情况下，如果法性从论典中完全成立，那么无疑论典本身就应该被视为量，因此论典会造成损害。那么，当有人说“声音不是虚空的性质”时，在这种情况下，从这部论典中广为人知的虚空的性质，会妨碍自己所说的虚空的性质。如果通过所作的理由成立的虚空的性质不是，怎么会妨碍从论典中广为人知的（虚空的性质）呢？对此，已经说过，在这些之中，哪个具有量。仅仅是没有量的承诺，才被称为互相妨碍。如果其中一个有量，那么它就是损害者。如果不是这样，也就是说，如果没有量的（承诺）不是妨碍，并且有量的（承诺）不损害没有量的（承诺），但如果想要论典本身造成损害，那么，在这种情况下，自己的言辞没有量，以及具有推理的意义是什么样的呢？对于不超出事物而进入的、具有量的自己的言辞，不合逻辑的承诺怎么会以圣教的自性造成损害呢？不会造成损害的。怎么说不合逻辑呢？因为圣教也是量。对此，已经说过，圣教是量也被遮止了。在第二品中，圣教不是自性所造，也不是由人所造，并且仅仅凭借可信的言辞是量，这些都已经被遮止了。因为对于不依赖论典的事物，如果说与圣教相违背，圣教没有损害，因此，凡是承诺圣教是量之后进行辨析的，例如对于法等，凡是凭借法性从论典中广为人知的辨析，论典会造成损害的过失会出现在这些辨析中，否则，对于法性不是从论典中广为人知的辨析，则不会出现这种过失。因为
English
When it is known that a dharma is established through experience, if it contradicts the speaker's own words, it is not a harm caused by the treatise. The treatise is the same as one's own words because it has been promised. In any case, if a dharma is fully established from the treatise, then undoubtedly the treatise itself should be regarded as a valid means of knowledge, and therefore the treatise will cause harm. So, when someone says, "Sound is not a quality of space," in that case, the quality of space that is well-known from this treatise will hinder the very quality of space that one has spoken of. If the non-existence of the quality of space, which is established by the reason of being produced, how will it hinder what is well-known from the treatise? To this, it has been said, which of these has a valid means of knowledge. Only promises that lack a valid means of knowledge are said to be mutually obstructive. If one of them has a valid means of knowledge, then it is the one that harms. If it is not so, that is, if those without a valid means of knowledge are not obstructive, and those with a valid means of knowledge do not harm those without a valid means of knowledge, but if one wants the treatise itself to cause harm, then, in that case, what is the meaning of one's own words being without a valid means of knowledge, and having inference? How can an illogical promise, which does not go beyond the object and enters into it, and which has its own words with a valid means of knowledge, harm by the nature of scripture? It will not harm. How can it be said to be illogical? Because scripture is also a valid means of knowledge. To this, it has been said that scripture being a valid means of knowledge has also been refuted. In the second chapter, it has been refuted that scriptures are not made by nature, nor made by a person, and that they are valid means of knowledge merely by trustworthy words. Because for things that do not rely on treatises, if one speaks of contradiction with scripture, scripture does not harm, therefore, all those who analyze after promising that scripture is a valid means of knowledge, for example, for things like dharma, all those analyses that are well-known from the treatise by means of dharma-nature, the fault of the treatise causing harm will appear in these analyses, otherwise, for analyses of dharma-nature that are not well-known from the treatise, this fault will not appear. Because
Tibetan
་དཔྱོད་བ་གང་དུ་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལ་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བར་བརྟེན་དགོས་པ་དེ་ཁོ་ན་བསྟན་བཅོས་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ལས་ཕྱི་རོལ་དུ་གྱུར་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཡང་ཁས་བླངས་པ་སྟེ་བསྟན་བཅོས་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ལས་ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་བྱས་སོ། །ཅིའི་དོན་དུ་ཞེ་ན། ཡུལ་གྱི་ དབྱེ་བ་སྟེ་ཐ་དད་པ་ཉིད་དོ། །རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་དང་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཀྱི་གནོད་པ་ནི་ཡུལ་ཐ་དད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ནི་ཐམས་ཅད་དུ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ལ། བསྟན་བཅོས་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ཆོས་ཅན་ལ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་པས། ཡུལ་གྱི་དབྱེ་བ་འདི་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་བྱས་སོ། །ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་མ་བྱས་ན་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའི་ཡུལ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ་བསྟན་བཅོས་ཀྱང་ཡིན་པར་དོགས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཅི་ལྟར་ཕྱི་རོལ་དུ་གྱུར་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། གང་གི་ཕྱིར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ནི་ཚད་མ་ཡིན་ལ། ལུང་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པར་ཁས་བླངས་པས་སོ། །གང་གི་ཕྱིར་ལུང་ནི་གནོད་བྱེད་དུ་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ཡིན་ལ། གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡང་ཚད་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཚད་མ་ཡང་མངོན་སུམ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེས་ན་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་བསྟན་བཅོས་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཡུལ་གྱི་དབྱེ་བ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་མ་ཡིན་ན་ནི། འདི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའི་དབྱེ་བ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་ལ། དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་འབྲས་བུ་དང་རང་བཞིན་དང་མི་དམིགས་པའི་རབ་ཏུ་དབྱེ་བ་གཞན་ཡང་བརྗོད་པར་བྱས་པས་ཧ་ཅང་ཐལ་བར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཅི་སྟེ་དབྱེ་བ་གཞན་ཡོད་ཀྱང་མ་བརྗོད་ན། བསྟན་བཅོས་ལོགས་ཤིན་ཏུ་བྱས་པ་དོན་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །འདི་ལྟར་བསྟན་བཅོས་ནི་འབྲས་བུའི་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་ཟིན་ཏོ། །གལ་ཏེ་ལོགས་སུ་བྱས་པ་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བར་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ལྟོས་པ་ཡིན་ནའོ། །རང་གི་ཚིག་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལས་ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་བྱས་པ་ལ་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅི་ཡོད་ཅེ་ན། ཚིག་ཙམ་བརྗོད་བ་སྟེ་གང་ཞིག་ཚད་མ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་ཚིག་ཙམ་བརྗོད་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེའོ། །དེ་ལ་གེགས་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་འདི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཡིན་ཏེ། འདི་རྟོགས་པར་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱིར་ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །གལ་ཏེ་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཚིག་གེགས་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ན་ནི། གང་གི་ཕྱིར་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཉིད་ནི་བསྟན་བཅོས་
Chinese
考察在何处必须毫无疑问地依赖论典，那恰恰是论典造成损害的，正因为如此，即使没有超出比量，也承认论典与比量是分开的。为什么呢？因为境的区别，也就是不同。比量和论典的损害是境不同，比量是对一切造成损害，而论典是对依赖论典的法有法造成损害。为了说明境的这种区别，所以分开。如果不分开，那么就会怀疑如同比量对一切境造成损害一样，论典也是如此。为什么没有超出呢？如果说比量是量，而圣言不是，那是因为承认造成损害。因为圣言被承认为损害者，而损害者也是量。量也不是现量，所以是比量，因此，因为承认是损害者，所以论典是比量。如果不是这样，那么就不是为了说明境的区别，而是为了说明这是比量的区别，如果是那样，那么即使说出果、自性和不可见的差别，也会太过分。如果即使有其他差别也不说，那么论典分开就变得没有意义了。像这样，论典是果的因，已经说过了。如果分开毫无疑问地依赖理由也是可以的。如果问自己的话，从论典中分开有什么理由呢？仅仅是说词，也就是任何与量分离的仅仅是说词的那些。这是障碍，但不是损害，这个意思就是理由，为了理解这个，所以分开，就是这个意思。如果不是量的词是障碍，但不是损害，那么，为什么不是量本身就是论典
English
The examination of where one must rely on the scriptures without doubt, that is precisely what causes harm to the scriptures, and for that very reason, even if it does not go beyond inference, it is acknowledged that the scriptures are separate from inference. Why is that? Because of the difference in the object, which is the very difference. The harm of inference and the scriptures is that the objects are different. Inference causes harm to everything, while the scriptures cause harm to the subject of dharma that relies on the scriptures. Therefore, in order to explain this difference in the object, it is separated. If it is not separated, then one would doubt that just as inference causes harm to all objects, so too do the scriptures. Why is it not beyond? If one says that inference is valid cognition, but scripture is not, it is because it is acknowledged to cause harm. Because scripture is acknowledged to be a harmer, and the harmer is also valid cognition. Valid cognition is also not direct perception, so it is inference. Therefore, because it is acknowledged to be a harmer, the scriptures are inference. If it is not like that, then it is not for the purpose of explaining the difference in the object, but rather it would become for the purpose of explaining the difference in inference. If that is the case, then even if one were to speak of other distinctions such as effect, nature, and non-apprehension, it would be too excessive. If even though there are other distinctions, they are not spoken of, then separating the scriptures would become meaningless. In this way, it has already been said that the scriptures are the reason of the effect. If separating is undoubtedly dependent on reason, that is also acceptable. If one asks what reason there is for separating one's own words from the scriptures, it is merely the utterance of words, that is, those that are merely the utterance of words that are separate from valid cognition. This is an obstacle, but not a harm, this meaning is the reason, and it is for the purpose of understanding this that it is separated. If words that are not valid cognition are an obstacle, but not a harm, then why is it that what is not valid cognition is itself the scriptures