English
Even if it is said to have shortcomings, it should not be abandoned, because not understanding this in itself is a punishment. Like this, because of not fully understanding, one does not follow, and in order to receive punishment, how would one want to fully understand? In this way, if it is made clear, how would one abandon oneself? That shortcoming transcends oneself, abandoning debate and examination, this is not the place of punishment, there is no other third situation. Why do some people argue? Here, in order to point out all the necessary aspects of what is needed, these are said. That is to say, abandoning debate and examination and speaking of argument, who will be defeated? Therefore, for the debater, the refuter, and the witnesses, seeing those who debate and examine, one should ask the audience, this is its meaning. Furthermore, the word "also" is mentioned to emphasize. In addition, the debaters will become the place of punishment, and these are the authorities themselves. Why should they not speak? The answer is that they will not explain and clarify that their own shortcomings and faults will lead to punishment. The teacher says, if here also it says "also" and so on. When discriminating with reason, neither side can be victorious or defeated. How will the debaters not be victorious? In order to show the meaning of wanting to understand the seemingly established argument. Therefore, the refuter will also not be defeated, because the argument that the refuter wants to establish depends on being established in order to determine defeat. In this way, why will the refuter not be victorious? Because the correct shortcomings are not pointed out. Therefore, the debater will also not be defeated, because he relies on refutation to determine. However, even if the latter's statement has many shortcomings, the debater, by stating the established argument, only points out a little bit of the shortcomings, and for the shortcomings that are not a little bit, at this time, punishment should not be carried out. Why? Because there is a reason that includes the answer. If punishment should be carried out, is it because all the shortcomings have not been stated?
Chinese
论师说：从“有”这个词开始，因为反驳者说出所有的过失，或者不说出，这两种过失都不能用来驳倒对方，因为完全没有道理。为什么不能说出所有的过失呢？解释说：即使说出一个未成立等过失，也能损害反驳者极善巧的论证。这是为了显示能够成立所应成立的。这是为了显示事物能够成立。这个例子就像解释说成立和作用是一样的。例如，等等，是种种分类。显示刹那性等等。虽然有许多能成立的，比如果性、从努力产生等等，但仅仅是存在等等。不能全部承认，因为不能确定刹那性等意义的成立，为了成立，不能全部承认。同样，因为一个过失也能损害成立，所以不能全部承认，这和上面的例子是相似的。因此，后派论者仅仅说出一个能损害的过失，如果其他人不说出其他的宗派，那就不应该被驳倒。因为前派论者显示了相似的论证，并且没有说出真实的过失。那么，如果反驳者没有提出相似的论证，那怎么会不获胜呢？如果反驳者说出了不真实的过失呢？后派论者在说出相似的过失时，自己的宗派没有抛弃，也没有违背。因此，说出相似的过失本身是没有力量的。不是反驳者，为什么呢？因为没有成立能成立的支分。没有成立能成立的支分，那是什么呢？就是那个事物本身。怎么知道是这样呢？解释说：因为没有成立完全显示没有所有过失的支分。像那样的特征吗？或者说是作用的第三个，因为没有成立。
English
The teacher said: Starting from the word "exists," because the opponent points out all the faults, or does not point them out, these two faults cannot be used to refute the other party, because there is absolutely no reason. Why can't all the faults be pointed out? Explaining: Even pointing out one fault such as non-establishment can harm the opponent's very skillful reasoning. This is to show the ability to establish what should be established. This is to show that things can be established. This example is like explaining that establishment and function are the same. For example, etc., are various classifications. Showing momentariness, etc. Although there are many things that can be established, such as the nature of the result, arising from effort, etc., it is only existence, etc. Not everything can be admitted, because the establishment of the meaning of momentariness, etc., cannot be determined, and for the sake of establishment, not everything can be admitted. Similarly, because one fault can also harm the establishment, not everything should be admitted, which is similar to the above example. Therefore, the later debater only points out one fault that can harm, and if others do not point out other schools, then they should not be refuted. Because the former debater showed a similar argument and did not point out the real fault. Then, if the opponent does not put forward a similar argument, how can he not win? What if the opponent points out an untrue fault? When the later debater points out a similar fault, his own school has not abandoned it, nor has it violated it. Therefore, pointing out a similar fault in itself has no power. It is not a refutation, why? Because the limb that can establish the establishment has not been established. What is it that has not established the limb that can establish the establishment? It is that thing itself. How do you know it is like this? Explaining: Because the limb that completely shows the absence of all faults has not been established. Is it a characteristic like that? Or is it the third of the function, because it has not been established.
Chinese
仅仅是相似的论证就能充分结合，这是总结的意思。对于后一方的陈述者来说，也没有胜利。为什么会这样呢？如果前一方的陈述者获得了驳倒，不仅仅是不进行驳倒，而且与后一方没有关联，这就是“也”字的含义。对于没有后续结合的情况进行后续结合，是因为对于没有获得驳倒的人陈述驳倒。又为什么这样陈述呢？因为要确定驳倒之处的特征等。正如所说的，因为没有完全了解驳倒之处的特征，这是它的意思。如果这样在没有理解的情况下进行驳倒，那么论师说了“即使那样”。如果辩论者的论证，被不真实的虚假过失所造成的错误等过失所损害，你所论证的不是充分结合，因此会成为驳倒，像这样就是对存在的结合。解释说，对于不是过失的地方，作为驳倒之处，这是区分过失。如果不是明显地结合，不是分别解释和陈述，即使那样，对于会陈述虚假过失，由于不理解陈述过失的特征的回答，以及没有陈述和没有勇气的原因，陈述不真实的回答是驳倒之处，这对于进行推论的人来说，陈述后续结合是驳倒之处。没有勇气是驳倒之处，除此之外没有其他的驳倒之处。什么时候这是因为没有勇气而被驳倒呢？解释说，当另一位辩论者陈述时，就显示了没有勇气。如果不是这样，就像之前一样，两个人中的一个不会成为胜利者和失败者，这是他的意思。因此，通过与反驳者相关的无差别词语的指示，就避免了与反驳者的关联。解释说，此外，反驳者所论证的真实正确的过失，错误等等，会陈述。
English
The mere appearance of proof is sufficient to combine, which is the summarized meaning. For the one who speaks on the later side, there is also no victory. Why is that so? If the one who speaks on the former side obtains refutation, not only does he not refute, but he is not unrelated to the later side, which is the meaning of the word "also." To apply a subsequent connection to that which has no subsequent connection is because one states a refutation to one who has not obtained refutation. And why is it stated in that way? It is because one must ascertain the characteristics of the place of refutation, and so on. As it is said, it is because one does not fully understand the characteristics of the place of refutation, which is its meaning. If one is to refute without understanding in that way, then the teacher speaks of "even if that is so." If the debater's proof is harmed by faults such as error caused by untrue, false faults, and you do not fully combine what you are proving, then it will become a refutation. Such a thing is a connection to what exists. The explanation is that, for what is not a fault, this is the distinguishing of faults as a place of refutation. If it is not manifestly combined, not separately explained and stated, even then, for what will become a statement of false faults, because of not understanding the answer to the characteristics of stating faults, and because of the reasons of not stating and not having courage, stating an untrue answer is a place of refutation. This, for one who infers, stating a subsequent connection is a place of refutation. Lack of courage is a place of refutation, and there is no other place of refutation besides that. When is this refuted because of lack of courage? The explanation is that when the other debater states it, it shows a lack of courage. If it is not so, just as before, one of the two will not become the victor and the vanquished, which is his meaning. Therefore, by the indication of words that are related to the opponent without difference, the connection with the opponent is avoided. The explanation is that, moreover, the faults of truth and correctness that the opponent proves, errors, and so on, will be stated.
Chinese
转变时，所谓“他人”是指前一方的辩论者用似乎是过失的言辞来明显地陈述，对于不确定等似乎是过失的驳斥，您要善加运用。因此，所谓将被驳倒，就是对于那样的情况明显地陈述的意思。那时，为了驳斥错误等过失，辩论者指出了真正的过失，驳斥就是清楚的，这是它的意思。似乎能成立的言辞本身就能驳倒辩论者，这是为了说明这个缘故。即使是这样，也因为与辩论者相关联而是不同的，但由于与似是而非的理由没有差别，所以必须另外说明的是，无疑地，要将辩论者的二十二种似是而非的理由作为驳倒之处，另外说明一个驳倒之处。为什么呢？因为已经说了“处所不同”，为了包括没有后效的后效，即没有超出驳倒之处的处所。如果不是这样，就与承诺的二十二种驳倒之处相违背了，他是这样想的。即使是这样，已经将如是所说的似是而非的理由作为驳倒之处进行了说明，再说其他的就是没有后效，其他的后效是没有意义的，因为已经包含在说明似是而非的理由之中了。承认已成立的宗派，并随之而来的不确定的言辞，就是没有已成立的宗派，这是总纲。承认已成立的宗派，并完全接受，因为是不确定的缘故。以前与场合相关的论典的安立是不存在的，这是它的意思。随之而来的言辞，即说明其他的意义，就是某些事物与所承诺的事物相反的相违。这要用比喻来阐明，例如，存在的事物无疑不会不坏灭，而且也会变得不明显。不存在的事物，如同马的角一样，将会产生。那么，是什么呢？是明显清楚的，即存在是产生的，像这样安立数论派的宗义。
English
When transforming, the so-called "others" refers to the previous debater explicitly stating with words that seem to be faults, and you should skillfully use rebuttals that seem to be faults such as uncertainty. Therefore, the so-called being refuted means explicitly stating such a situation. At that time, in order to refute faults such as errors, the debater points out the real fault, and the refutation is clear, that is its meaning. The words that seem to be able to establish can themselves refute the debater, this is to explain this reason. Even so, it is different because it is related to the debater, but since there is no difference from the seemingly reasonable reasons, what must be explained separately is that, undoubtedly, the debater's twenty-two seemingly reasonable reasons must be taken as the point of refutation, and another point of refutation must be explained separately. Why? Because it has been said that "the place is different," in order to include the subsequent effect that has no subsequent effect, that is, the place that has not exceeded the point of refutation. If it is not like this, it will contradict the promised twenty-two points of refutation, that is what he thinks. Even so, the seemingly reasonable reasons that have been stated as such have been explained as the point of refutation, and to say others is that there is no subsequent effect, and other subsequent effects are meaningless, because they have already been included in the explanation of the seemingly reasonable reasons. Admitting the established tenet, and the uncertain words that come with it, is the absence of an established tenet, this is the general outline. Admitting the established tenet and fully accepting it is because it is uncertain. The establishment of treatises that were previously related to the occasion does not exist, that is its meaning. The words that come with it, that is, explaining other meanings, are some things that contradict the promised things. This should be clarified with a metaphor, for example, existing things will undoubtedly not not be destroyed, and will also become unclear. Non-existent things, like a horse's horn, will be produced. So, what is it? It is clear and obvious, that is, existence is produced, like this establishing the tenets of the Samkhya school.