Chinese
因为成为所要成立的，在成立上是必然的缘故。如果不是从它产生所要成立的，那么必然要观察不产生。不是从论式在不相符的方面没有见到和在相符的方面见到而来的。否则，如果没有因和果的事物和它的自性，那么和其他一起必然存在的确定性就会不存在。如果已成立的被承认是未成立的自性，是其他有理由的法，那么所谓的必然存在的确定性是什么呢？例如衣服上必然有颜色的确定性一样。另外，如果说是其他法有理由，那么不仅仅会不存在必然存在的确定性，而且有其他理由的自性也会变成其他，这样说是因为，见到任何法有其他理由，那它就是不同于它的。这在自性论式的场合会变成刹那坏灭的延续，如果不是在那时说，那怎么办呢？虽然是真实的，但是如果因为有其他理由而变成其他，那么就是使它的因的差别成为差别。如果成立了使因的差别成为差别，那就成立了。而使因的差别成为差别这个意义，也应该在果论式的场合说。因此，在说果论式的时候，就说了这个剩余的部分。解释不同的关系就是“如果它成立”的意思。如果成立了，什么没有成立，那就是成立了没有成立或者因不同，因为它不是先前成立的自性。为什么是这样呢？因为说了“事物们的”，凡是存在相违的法，那就是不同的，而不同的名称就是它的对境。因不同也是这个，凡是产生者不同。凡是在世间上被称为不同的，难道不应该说成是不同的吗？如果说存在相违的法在世间上是不出名的，那么，在世间上被称为不同的又是什么呢？
English
Because becoming what is to be established, it is necessarily the reason for establishment. If what is to be established does not arise from it, then one must necessarily observe its non-arising. It does not come from the argument not being seen in the dissimilar aspect and being seen in the similar aspect. Otherwise, if there were no cause and effect entities and their own nature, then the certainty of necessarily existing together with others would not exist. If what has been done is acknowledged as the nature of what has not been done, as another reasoned dharma, then what is the so-called certainty of necessarily existing? For example, like the certainty of necessarily having color on clothes. Furthermore, if it is said that another dharma has a reason, then not only will the certainty of necessarily existing not exist, but the nature of having another reason will also become other. This is said because, seeing any dharma having another reason, it is different from it. In the case of the nature argument, this will become a continuation of momentary destruction. If it is not said at that time, then what to do? Although it is true, however, if because of having another reason it becomes other, then it is what makes the difference of its cause become different. If making the difference of the cause become different is established, then it is established. And the meaning of making the difference of the cause become different should also be said in the case of the effect argument. Therefore, when explaining the effect argument, this remaining part is explained. Explaining the different relationship means "if it is established." If it is established, what is not established, that is, it is established that it is not established or the cause is different, because it is not the nature of what was previously established. Why is it like that? Because it is said "of the entities," whatever exists as contradictory dharmas, that is different, and the name of different is its object. The different cause is also this, whatever the producer is different. Whatever is known as different in the world, shouldn't it be called different? If it is said that the existence of contradictory dharmas is not famous in the world, then what is known as different in the world?
Chinese
如果认为在世间上认识到是不同的，那么在世间上询问所称的不同，就是世间人的认识。询问你，这个认识的对境是什么，不是吗？那么，为何说对什么世间人才会认识呢？因为没有不同于法的其他原因，所以它是世间名称的原因。所谓“由此”是因为存在相违之法。原因不同，因为之前已经成立，所以这里不成立，这是为了成立相违之法。因为没有其他不同的理由，所以会变成一个整体。如果变成一个整体会怎么样呢？回答说：因为是一个，所以会变成一起产生和毁灭。如果是次第产生和毁灭，那么已经产生的和未产生的，以及已经毁灭的和未毁灭的，那些都不会变成一个。因此，会变成不具有次第的产生和毁灭。对于不认为存在相违之法是不同的理由的人来说，因为次第产生和毁灭，那么已经产生的和未产生的，以及已经毁灭的和未毁灭的，变成不同，不合理吗？对于不承认不同是具有相违之法的原因的人来说，又如何能以成立和未成立的原因，以及毁灭和未毁灭的原因，来承认是多个自性呢？回答说：虽然是这样，但是认为什么存在的人，就应该承认它与放弃其自性是相离的。因为当存在的时候，就无法知道它已经从其自性中衰退了。在所有情况下，都是完全放弃了其自性而存在的。那么，为何不承认那些不同是具有相违之法的原因呢？回答说：所有存在的事物，都不是因为具有不同于存在和不存在的相违之法的原因而被承认是不同的，而是仅仅因为存在和不存在的原因而被承认是不同的。其中，任何已经产生和未毁灭的事物，都是以不衰退的方式存在于其自身的体性中。任何未产生和已经毁灭的事物，都是以其自性
English
If it is thought that difference is recognized in the world, then asking about the difference known in the world is the understanding of worldly people. Wasn't the meaning of asking you what the object of this understanding is? Then, why say that worldly people understand what? Because there is no other cause than different dharmas, so that is the cause of worldly terms. The so-called "by that" is because contradictory dharmas exist. Different causes have already been established, so they are not established here, but this is to establish contradictory dharmas. Because there is no other reason for difference, it will become a single whole. If it becomes a single whole, what will happen? It is said: Because it is one, it will become simultaneous arising and destruction. If it is gradual arising and destruction, then what has arisen and what has not arisen, and what has been destroyed and what has not been destroyed, those will not become one. Therefore, it will become arising and destruction without order. For those who do not consider the existence of contradictory dharmas as a reason for difference, because of gradual arising and destruction, isn't it unreasonable that what has arisen and what has not arisen, and what has been destroyed and what has not been destroyed, become different? For those who do not admit that difference is the cause of contradictory dharmas, how can they admit multiplicity with the cause of being established and not established, and the cause of being destroyed and not destroyed? Answer: Although it is so, whoever thinks that something exists should admit that it is separate from abandoning its own nature. Because when it exists, it is not possible to know that it has declined from its own nature. In all cases, it exists completely abandoning its own nature. Then, why is it not admitted that those differences are the cause of having contradictory dharmas? Answer: All existing things are not admitted to be different because of the reason of having contradictory dharmas other than existence and non-existence, but only because of the reason of existence and non-existence. Among them, whatever has arisen and has not been destroyed exists in its own essence in a way that does not decline. Whatever has not arisen and has been destroyed is with its nature
Tibetan
ན་ཉམས་པ་དང་ལྡན་པས་དེ་ལས་ཐ་དད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཐ་དད་པ་འགལ་བའི་ཆོས་དང་ལྡན་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅན་དུ་ཁས་བླངས་ཀྱང་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅན་དུ་ནི་ཐ་དད་པ་ཁས་བླང་བར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་པ་ཁོ་ནའོ། །སྐྱེ་བ་དང་འཇིག་པ་རིམ་པ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཡིན་ན་ཐ་དད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཐལ་བ་དེའི་ཕྱིར། གཅིག་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཅིག་ཅར་སྐྱེ་བ་དང་འཇིག་པ་དང་ལྡན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཐམས་ཅད་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་ནི་འདི་སྐད་བརྗོད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དངོས་པོའི་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་ནི་དོན་བྱ་བ་མེད་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅན་ཡིན་ནོ། །གལ་ཏེ་ཡོད་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་གཅིག་ཉིད་ཡིན་ན་ནི། དེའི་ཚེ་བུམ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལ་ཡང་སྣམ་བུའི་རང་བཞིན་ཡོད་པ་དེའི་ ཕྱིར་བུམ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པས་ཀྱང་སྣམ་བུས་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བའི་དོན་བྱ་བ་བྱ་དགོས་ཏེ། གལ་ཏེ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཡོད་ན་དེ་ལྟ་ན་གཅིག་ཉིད་དོ། །དོན་བྱ་བ་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ལས་ལྡོག་ན་ནི་དངོས་པོ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་ལྡོག་པར་བྱེད་དོ། །གང་ཞིག་གང་ལ་མེད་པ་དེ་ནི་དེའི་རང་བཞིན་ཉམས་པ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གཞན་ཉིད་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེ་ལ་ཡང་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པ་འགལ་བའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅན་ཐ་དད་པར་ཐལ་བ་ཁོ་ནའོ། །དེས་ན་རིལ་གཅིག་ཉིད་ཡིན་ན་ཅིག་ཅར་སྐྱེ་བ་དང་འཇིག་པ་དག་དང༌། ཐམས་ཅད་དོན་བྱ་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ཉེ་བར་སྦྱོར་བར་ཐལ་བ་ཁོ་ནའོ། །དེ་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ་སྐྱེ་བ་དང་འཇིག་པ་རིམ་པ་དང་ལྡན་པ་དང༌། ཐམས་ཅད་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་ཉེ་བར་མི་སྦྱོར་ན་དེའི་རང་བཞིན་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པ་དག་གི་མཐའ་དག་ཐ་དད་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་གཅིག་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་གཅིག་ཉིད་དང་ལྡན་པ་དངོས་པོའི་གནས་ལུགས་ཀྱིས་གཅིག་གི་རང་བཞིན་དུ་མི་འགྱུར་བའམ། ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གྱིས་ཐ་དད་པར་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་གཅིག་ཅེས་མིང་ཐ་དད་པར་ཟད་དོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། དུ་མ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྒྲས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཁས་བླངས་ནས་དེ་སྐད་དུ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་གཅིག་གི་སྒྲས་བརྗོད་པའོ། །དེས་ན་གཅིག་ཡིན་ན་ཅིག་ཅར་ཡོད་པ་དང་མེད་པ་ལ་མི་འཁྲུལ་བའི་ཆོས་སུ་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་དག་གཅིག་ལ་ཅིག་ཅར་འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །རིམ་གྱིས་སྐྱེ་བ་དང་འགག་པ་དག་ཡིན་ན་ནི་དངོས་པོ་དང་དངོས་པོ་མེད་པ་ལ་མི་འཁྲུལ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དོན་བྱེད་པ་ལ་ཉེ་བར་སྦྱོར་བ་ཡང་ངེས་པའི་ཡུལ་ཅན་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེས་ན་རིལ་རྫས་གཅིག་ཉིད་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གལ་ཏེ་འགལ་བའི་ཆོས་བརྟེན་པ་ལས་དུ་མ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ན། རྒྱུ་དོན་ཐ་དད་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཏུ་མ་ཟད་ཀྱི། རྒྱུ་དོན་ཐ་དད་པ་ཉིད་མེད་ཀྱང་སྟེ། དོ
Chinese
因为具有缺失，所以与它不同。因此，即使承认不同是具有矛盾性质的理由，也只能承认有和无的理由是不同的。如果生和灭是有次第的，那么就会推论为不同，因此，一切都是同时生和灭的。所谓“一切对一切”，这是在说，事物的存在本身就是没有作用的理由。如果一切存在都是一，那么，对于瓶子等也具有布的自性，因此，瓶子等也必须做布所要完成的事情。如果一切都存在于一切之中，那么就是一。如果与做事情相违背，那么事物本身也会相违背。对于什么不存在的，那是因为它具有失去其自性的缘故，所以是其他的。对于此，有和无的矛盾理由也只能推论为不同。因此，如果是一个整体，那么就会推论为同时生和灭，以及一切都与一切作用相关联。如果不是这样，即生和灭是有次第的，并且一切不与一切相关联，那么，它的自性有和无的所有的边际都是不同的，因此，所谓“一”这个词，与具有一性事物的事物实相不成为一的自性，或者因为承认有和无的理由是不同的，所以“一”这个名称只是名称不同而已。为什么呢？因为承认了用多数的词语来表达的意义，所以才用“一”这个词语来表达。因此，如果是一，就不会成为同时存在和不存在的不混淆的法，因为它们在一个上是同时矛盾的。如果是次第生和灭，那么就不会与事物和非事物相混淆。与做事情相关联也不是确定的对境，因此，不是一个整体的实物。如果因为依赖矛盾的法而是多数，那么，不仅是原因和结果不同，而且原因和结果本身也不存在，道理。
English
Because it possesses deficiency, it is different from it. Therefore, even if it is admitted that difference is a reason for possessing contradictory qualities, it can only be admitted that the reasons for existence and non-existence are different. If arising and ceasing are sequential, then it would follow that they are different; therefore, everything would arise and cease simultaneously. The phrase "everything to everything" means that the very existence of a thing is a reason for not having a function. If all existence were one, then, for example, pots would also have the nature of cloth, and therefore pots would also have to perform the function that cloth is meant to accomplish. If everything exists in everything, then it is one. If it contradicts doing things, then the thing itself also contradicts. That which does not exist in something is other because it possesses the loss of its own nature. For that, the contradictory reasons of existence and non-existence can only be inferred as different. Therefore, if it is a single whole, then it would follow that arising and ceasing are simultaneous, and that everything is closely associated with every function. If it is not so, that is, if arising and ceasing are sequential, and everything is not closely associated with everything, then all the extremes of its nature, existence and non-existence, are different. Therefore, the word "one," possessing oneness, does not become the nature of one by the reality of things, or because the reasons for existence and non-existence are admitted to be different, so the name "one" is merely a different name. Why? Because after admitting the meaning to be expressed by the term of plurality, it is expressed by the term of one. Therefore, if it is one, it will not become a non-confused dharma of simultaneous existence and non-existence, because they are simultaneously contradictory in one. If arising and ceasing are gradual, then there is no confusion between things and non-things. Association with doing things is also not a definite object, therefore, it is not a single whole substance. If it is multiple because of relying on contradictory dharmas, then not only are cause and effect different, but cause and effect themselves do not exist, the reason being...