Chinese
是名称的不同。因为声音不同而导致意义的成立与不成立是不合理的。即使不听信说这种话的言辞，也会变成之前所说的过失。因为说这种话时，诸神会欢喜，成为世间值得赞叹的智慧者。因为是应该赞扬和称赞的。因此，以愚者胜利作为结尾。又说了其他的疑问。因为智慧和知识是名称的异名，所以不是作为记号和有记号的意义而存在，然而，这些根和境是推测智慧的记号。因为有根和境的缘故，依靠根而变成具有境之对象的智慧。如果有人说：导师说，不迷惑就是理由。意思是说：对于什么不迷惑，那就是它的记号。根是对知识迷惑的。即使有根，它的知识也不会进入，否则，因为有根的缘故，所有根的知识都会永远存在，但事实并非如此，也不是期望的。同样，境是理由，仅仅存在就是理由的话，那么，一切都会变成有知。如果是接近的理由，那么，就会变成同时执持所有接近的事物，但这不是理智或期望的，因为没有承诺同时进入各种知识。因此，根和境是对知识迷惑的，这样就成立了。有些人说，因为这是根和境的共同之处，所以说是迷惑。对于那些这样说的人，应该问：因为是共同之处，所以要解释的这个过失的处所是什么？另外，根和境的同时存在本身就是理由，因为根没有迷惑，所以集合也不会迷惑。因为根对于每个人来说是确定的，怎么会变成共同的过失呢？如果这个论典没有成立知识，那么根和境也不会成立，因此迷惑也没有成立。
English
are different names. It is unreasonable for differences in sound to lead to the establishment or non-establishment of different meanings. Even if one does not lend an ear to words spoken in this way, it will still become the fault mentioned earlier. Because when one speaks in this way, the gods will rejoice, and one will become a wise person worthy of praise in the world. Because one is worthy of praise and commendation. Therefore, the conclusion is that the fool is victorious. Furthermore, others have stated their doubts. Because intelligence and knowledge are synonyms, they do not exist as signs and the meanings of what is signified. However, these faculties and objects are signs for inferring intelligence. Because there are faculties and objects, intelligence becomes the object of the senses by relying on the faculties. If someone says: The teacher said that non-confusion is the reason. This means that whatever one is not confused about is its sign. The faculty is confused about knowledge. Even if the faculty exists, its knowledge does not enter, otherwise, because the faculty exists, the knowledge of all faculties would always exist, but this is not the case, nor is it desired. Similarly, if the object is the reason, and mere existence is the reason, then everything would become knowing. If it is a proximate reason, then it would follow that all proximate things are grasped simultaneously, but this is not reasonable or desirable, because it is not accepted that various kinds of knowledge enter simultaneously. Therefore, it is established that faculties and objects are confused about knowledge. Some say that because this is a commonality of faculties and objects, it is said to be confusion. To those who say this, one should ask: Because it is a commonality, what is the locus of this fault that is to be explained? Furthermore, the simultaneous existence of faculty and object is itself the reason. Because the faculty is not confused, the aggregate will also not be confused. Because the faculty is definite for each individual, how can it become a common fault? If knowledge is not established by this treatise, then faculties and objects will also not be established, therefore confusion is not established.
Chinese
说“如此显示”也是不合道理的。因为在此处，既然已经承认了义成立，那么如果知识变成隐蔽，必然会如何变化呢？这是显示的场合。因此，紧接着就会想到未成立的过失。未成立的关联的过失，将在此处的末尾阐述。因此，先前的说法才是好的。说“是意”等，是怀疑意是能立。为了驳斥，所以说“那也是”。意思是说，他人所认为的意，也是通过成立的知识的刹那不生来推断的。因此，在知识未成立的情况下，它不会成立。这个过失对于具有识性的意也同样适用。因为是唯一的知识的因，所以这个识本身才应该是意，而不是先前没有被考察过的意。显示那一点就是，意也应该是识，而不是其他的。无间断的，成为无间断的知识之因的是先前，因为这具有意的作用。显示那个作用就是，先前的知识，对于想要作为知识不生的对境之外的其他对境，心专注和执着，以及能力减弱，即被睡眠等减弱。因此，像那样两者都要抓住。有些人认为仅仅是心专注就会导致能力减弱，那是不包括所有的，所以是太过分了。即使有其他的对境，也是知识不生的因，因此那才应该是意，因为意的必要性就在于此。如果那样有什么过失呢？回答说，那也没有成立，因为是识的自性。因为未成立，所以不能用未成立来成立未成立。用“对境清晰”等，显示了怀疑对境清晰是能立，为了遣除，所以说了“清晰的那个”等。因为对境清晰是知识的自性，或者仅仅是变成知识的对境的自性的意思。
English
It is also unreasonable to say "it is shown in this way." Because here, since it has been admitted that the meaning is established, how will it necessarily change if knowledge becomes obscured? This is the occasion for showing. Therefore, the fault of not being immediately established will be mentioned. The fault of not establishing the connection will be explained at the end of this. Therefore, the previous statement is better. Saying "it is mind," etc., is a doubt that mind is a sign. To refute it, it is said, "That is also." The meaning is that the mind that others consider is also inferred from the fact that the moment of established knowledge does not arise. Therefore, it will not be established if knowledge is not established. This fault is also the same for the mind that has the nature of consciousness. Because it is the cause of a single knowledge, this consciousness itself should be the mind, not the mind that has not been examined before. Showing that is that the mind should also be consciousness, not something else. The uninterrupted, the previous one that becomes the cause of uninterrupted knowledge, because it has the function of mind. Showing that function is that the previous knowledge, for other objects other than wanting to be the object of non-birth of knowledge, the mind is focused and attached, and the ability is weakened, that is, weakened by sleep, etc. Therefore, both should be grasped in that way. Some people think that just focusing the mind will lead to a weakening of ability, which does not include everything, so it is too much. Even if there are other objects, it is the cause of non-birth of knowledge, so that should be the mind, because the necessity of the mind lies in this. If so, what is the fault? The answer is that it is not established, because it is the nature of consciousness. Because it is not established, it cannot use the unestablished to establish the unestablished. Using "the object is clear," etc., shows the doubt that the object is clear is a sign, and in order to dispel it, it is said "that clear one," etc. Because the object is clear is the nature of knowledge, or it is just the meaning of becoming the nature of the object of knowledge.