Chinese
即使允许进入，那么这个非常简略的说法有什么用呢？无论是关系意义不同，还是意义不相同都可以。然而，这个“它和二者是什么关系”的解释是，仅仅是“它和二者是什么关系”。如果因为关系成为原因，而希望两个有关系的事物有关系，那么它和那二者在一起也需要其他的关系。否则，两个有关系的事物以什么理由说“这是关系”呢？就会变成第六种极端的区分。这个“不存在”的说法，是为了表明这是否定的词语，而不是疑问的词语。为什么关系和有关系的事物二者在一起，就不可能有其他的关系呢？因此，因为存在如前所说的过失，就像两个有关系的事物没有关系一样，也说了它和两个有关系的事物之间也没有关系。就像两个微小的有关系的事物，互相之间阻碍其他的主宰等等一样，这个关系和两个有关系的事物在一起，也不应有其他的主宰等等。否则，两个有关系的事物之间，又有什么可憎恨的呢？如果承认关系和有关系的事物二者在一起有其他的主宰等等，那么对于两个微小的有关系的事物，又有什么不能容忍的呢？因为什么原因不希望那二者互相之间有其他主宰等等的关系呢？“另外”这个说法是为了指出其他的过失。如果因为关系的意义相同而希望有关系，那么那时关系和有关系的事物二者之间也必须存在一个关系，也就是说，如果因为两个微小的有关系的事物具有其他的关系，而希望互相之间有关系，那么那时关系和有关系的事物二者也因为具有其他的关系，而必须希望有关系。为什么呢？因为如此这般地承认关系。就像这样，你因为一个关系的原因而希望有关系，因此关系和有关系的事物二者之间，也必须希望通过一个关系而有关系。因为在那之中也仅仅存在关系的意义。
English
Even if it is allowed to enter, what is the use of this very brief statement? Whether the meaning of the relationship is different or the meaning is not different, it is acceptable. However, the explanation of "what is the relationship between it and the two" is simply "what is the relationship between it and the two." If, because the relationship becomes the cause, it is desired that two related things have a relationship, then it and those two together also need other relationships. Otherwise, for what reason do two related things say "this is the relationship"? It will become the sixth extreme distinction. This statement of "non-existence" is to show that it is a negative word, not a question word. Why is it that when a relationship and related things are together, there cannot be other relationships? Therefore, because there is a fault as mentioned before, just as two related things have no relationship, it is also said that there is no relationship between it and two related things. Just as two tiny related things hinder other masters, etc., from each other, this relationship and two related things together should not have other masters, etc. Otherwise, what is hateful about the relationship between two related things? If it is admitted that the relationship and related things together have other masters, etc., then what is intolerable for two tiny related things? For what reason do you not want those two to have a relationship of other masters, etc., with each other? The statement "in addition" is to point out other faults. If it is desired to have a relationship because the meaning of the relationship is the same, then at that time there must also be a relationship between the relationship and the related things, that is, if it is desired to have a relationship with each other because two tiny related things have other relationships, then at that time the relationship and the related things must also be desired to have a relationship because they have other relationships. Why? Because the relationship is admitted in this way. In this way, you want to have a relationship because of a relationship, so the relationship and the related things must also be desired to have a relationship through a relationship. Because there is only the meaning of relationship in it.
Chinese
要知道，如果第一个关系和两个相关者在一起，就承认另一个关系，同样，第二个关系也和两个相关者以及第一个关系在一起，也应该承认另一个关系。同样，第三个关系和两个相关者以及第一个和第二个关系在一起，也必须有另一个第四个关系。因此，如果按照前面所说的方式，就会变成没有止境。如果某个地方没有成立唯一的关联，那么如果没有任何关联，那么在所有地方，都应该这样理解为没有关联。也就是说，如果按照前面所说的方式，变成了没有止境，那么为了避免这种没有止境的情况，在某些情况下，不应该承认唯一的关联。如果在第五个或第六个等其他一些情况下，不承认唯一的关联，那么这种情况就会变成两个相关者之间没有关联。就像在那里两个相关者之间没有唯一的关联一样，在所有地方，两个相关者之间也必须没有唯一的关联。因为会变成没有止境，所以关系的知识不是跟随事物本身的。也就是说，如果按照前面所说的方式，变成了没有止境，那么关系的知识就不是以关系变成事物为理由的。如果在某些地方，即使没有唯一的关联，也认为有关系，那么从最初的两个相关者来说，因为也和唯一的事物相关联，所以不会变成没有关系。也就是说，如果在某些情况下，即使没有唯一的关联，也承认有关系，那么对于最初的两个相关者，也不应该以唯一的关联为理由而承认有关系。如果两个相关者不是因为唯一的关联而相关，而是因为相关者只是暂时接近才相关，那么，因此，即使只是暂时相关，也已经说过了过失。也就是说，也不应该承认相关者暂时的关系，因为已经指出了这方面的过失。
English
To know, if the first relation and two related entities are together, another relation is acknowledged, similarly, the second relation is also with two related entities and the first relation together, another relation should also be acknowledged. Similarly, the third relation and two related entities and the first and second relations together, another fourth relation must also exist. Therefore, if it is according to the way it was said before, it will become endless. If the meaning of a single relation is not established in some place, then if there is no relation, then in all places, it should be understood as no relation. That is to say, if it becomes endless according to the way it was shown before, then in order to avoid this endlessness, in some cases, the meaning of a single relation should not be acknowledged. If in other cases such as the fifth or sixth, a single relation is not acknowledged, then that situation will become that there is no relation between the two related entities. Just as there is no single relation between the two related entities there, in all places, there must also be no single relation between the two related entities. Because it will become endless, the knowledge of relation is not following the things themselves. That is to say, if it becomes endless according to the way it was shown before, then the knowledge of relation is not because the relation has become a thing. If in some places, even if there is no single relation, relation is still thought of, then from the first two related entities, because it is also related to the single thing, it will not become no relation. That is to say, if in some cases, even if there is no single relation, relation is still acknowledged, then for the first two related entities, relation should not be acknowledged on the grounds of a single relation. If two related entities are not related by a single meaning of relation, but related entities are related only when they are temporarily close, then, therefore, even if it is only a temporary relation, the fault has already been spoken of. That is to say, the temporary relation of related entities should also not be acknowledged, because the fault in this regard has already been pointed out.
Tibetan
ན་ཏོ། །བར་མེད་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཆོས་ཐ་དད་པར་རྟོག་པའི་ལན་ཀྱང་དེས་བཏབ་ཟིན་ཏོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་གཅིག་པུའི་དོན་གྱི་སྒོ་ནས་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གཉིས་འབྲེལ་པར་སྨྲས་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་བསལ་བ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་བར་མེད་པ་དང༌། ཕྲད་པ་དང་ཉེ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཆོས་ཐ་དད་པ་ཉིད་བསལ་བར་རིག་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། བར་མེད་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཆོས་གཞན་འབྲེལ་པ་གཅིག་པུའི་དོན་གྱིས་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གཉིས་འབྲེལ་པར་མི་འཐད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །གང་གི་ཕྱིར་དེ་ལྟར་འབྲེལ་པ་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་རུང་བ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གཅིག་པུའི་སྒོ་ནས་ཀྱང་འདི་ལྟར་འབྲེལ་པའི་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་ཤིན་ཏུ་མི་འཐད་དོ། །དེ་བས་ན་དངོས་པོ་དེ་གཉིས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་དུ་མངོན་པར་འདོད་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་ནི་འདིར་དངོས་པོར་བཤད་དོ། །དེ་ལས་གཞན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འབྲེལ་པ་ནི་འདིར་དེ་ལས་གཞན་པའི་སྒྲས་བརྗོད་དོ། །དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་ཇི་ སྐད་དུ་སྨོས་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འབྲེལ་པ་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་དུ་མངོན་པར་འདོད་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་བར་དུའོ། །བདག་ཉིད་གནས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་འོག་ནས་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་གནས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། བདག་ཉིད་ཀྱི་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་གནས་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །དེ་བས་ན་དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་དེ་བས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ནི་དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་བཤད་དོ། །མ་འདྲེས་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་མེད་པའོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། སོ་སོ་ན་འདུག་ཅེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །རང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིའི་བཤད་པ་ནི་བདག་ཉིད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་དོན་ཏོ། །དངོས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་དངོས་པོའོ། །འདི་སྐད་བསྟན་ཏོ། འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གཉིས་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་ནི་གང་གི་ཕྱིར་སོ་སོ་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་གནས་པ་དེ་བས་ན་དངོས་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་མ་འདྲེས་པ་མ་ཕྲད་པ། མ་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འོ་ན་ཇི་ལྟར་རག་ལས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་དེ་དང་དེས་འབྲེལ་པ་ཡིན་པར་བརྗོད་ཅེ་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཅི་སྟེ་དངོས་པོ་ཐམས་ཅད་འབྲེལ་པ་མེད་ན་ཇི་ལྟར་འབྲེལ་པ་དེ་དང་དེས་རག་ལས་པའི་ངོ་བོར་སྟོན་ཏེ། འདི་ལྟ་སྟེ། རྗེ་ཁོལ་གྱི་སྒོ་ནས་རྒྱལ་པོའི་མི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་དང༌། ཆ་ཤས་དང་ཆ་ཤས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒོ་ནས་ཤིང་གི་ཡལ་ག་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་དང༌། རྒྱུ་འབྲས་ཀྱི་སྒོ་ནས་ས་བོན་གྱི་མྱུ་གུ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་དང་རིག་པ་འ
Chinese
那托。 像无间等法的差别之想的回答也已经由它作答完毕，名为以唯一关系的意义，凡是说有关系的两件事物有关系，通过消除它本身，要知道无间和相遇以及接近等法的差别本身也被消除。 像无间等其他法，以唯一关系的意义，两件有关系的事物不应有关系，这是它的意思。 因为那样分别关系是不允许的，名为即使通过唯一有关系的事物，像这样分别关系的形态也是极不应理的。 因此，那两个事物，名为这的解释是显现为有关系的事物，名为有关系的事物，在这里被解释为事物。 不同于它，名为这的解释是关系，名为关系，在这里用不同于它的词语来表达。 所有那些，名为这的解释是如前所说，名为直到显现为关系和有关系的事物之间。 自性住，名为这的解释是下面说的是安住于自己的自性，名为安住于自性的同义词。 因此，因为那个缘故，名为在因为那个缘故中，因为的词语用因为那个缘故来解释。 不混合，名为这的解释是没有关系，名为各自存在的意思。 自，名为这的解释是自己，名为自己的自性的意思。 物，名为是事物。 如此显示，有关系的两个事物和关系，因为什么各自安住于自己的自性，因此一切事物自己的自性不混合，不相遇，没有关系。 那么，如果一切事物没有关系，如何用那个和那个关系来显示依赖的自性呢？例如，通过主奴的关系，名为国王的人，以及通过部分和整体的关系，名为树的树枝，以及通过因果的关系，名为种子的苗芽和
English
Nato. The answer to the thought of the difference of dharmas such as without interval has already been answered by it, namely, by means of the meaning of a single relation, whatever says that two related things are related, by eliminating it itself, it should be known that the difference of dharmas such as without interval and encounter and proximity are also eliminated. Other dharmas such as without interval, by the meaning of a single relation, two related things should not be related, that is its meaning. Because it is not permissible to distinguish relations in that way, namely, even through a single related thing, it is extremely unreasonable to distinguish the forms of relation in this way. Therefore, those two things, namely, the explanation of this is to appear as related things, namely, related things, here are explained as things. Different from it, namely, the explanation of this is relation, namely, relation, here is expressed by the word different from it. All those, namely, the explanation of this is as mentioned above, namely, up to the appearance of relation and related things. Self-nature dwelling, namely, the explanation of this is that it is said below that it dwells in its own self-nature, namely, the synonym of dwelling in its own self-nature. Therefore, because of that reason, namely, in because of that reason, the word because is explained by because of that reason. Not mixed, namely, the explanation of this is without relation, namely, the meaning of being separate. Self, namely, the explanation of this is self, namely, the meaning of one's own self-nature. Thing, namely, is thing. Thus it is shown, two related things and relation, because of what each dwells in its own self-nature, therefore all things their own self-nature is not mixed, not encountered, without relation. Then, if all things have no relation, how can the dependent self-nature be shown by that and that relation? For example, through the relation of master and servant, namely, the king's man, and through the relation of part and whole, namely, the branch of a tree, and through the relation of cause and effect, namely, the sprout of a seed and