Chinese
是这样的。因此，应如何进行区分呢？文中提到了“时间”等等。而“完全清净也”中的“也”字，是因为有其他的次第。此处的“若一，若遍”应连接在一起。如何进行区分呢？文中提到了“如一切事物之文字”。这是这样解释的：例如，像“嘎”等字母，虽然是恒常唯一的，但在仅以声音差别的作用下，于唯一的境中显现时，对境等进行区分，就能理解区分，时间也是如此。如果说，这遍及一切事物，即使如此，在以某种作为的差别，使某些事物显现时，就能把握区分。在使字母显现时，就成为理解意义的支分。那么，如果进行了区分，又如何理解它是恒常和遍及的呢？文中提到了“于其他亦”等等。就像竹子和花朵等其他事物中也存在一样，因为存在，所以它就成立为恒常和遍及。提到恒常，是为了近似地表示。因此，文中以“词语”等结束，是为了使自己的观点成立而作总结。所谓“像这样的某些”，是指次第等的体性。那么，如果次第是时间的法，或者仅仅是使之显现的声音的法，而不是究竟的文字的法，那它又如何是理解的支分呢？ 如果说，其他的法不是其他的，文中提到了“其他的法也”等等。所谓“说”，例如“入船者亦行”等等。入船之词，表示乘坐的所有交通工具。就像马的力量等一样。例如，像马等所具有的力量，乘坐它的人到达其他地方，以及树木等成为了解行走的支分一样，仅仅存在于声音中的次第，也是文字理解意义的支分。就这样，为了广说声音是无常的，而立下誓言。
English
It is like that. Therefore, how should one differentiate? The text mentions "time" and so on. The word "also" in "completely pure also" is because there are other sequences. Here, "if one, if pervasive" should be connected together. How is it differentiated? The text mentions "like letters for all things." This is explained as follows: For example, like the letters "ga" and so on, although they are constant and unique, when they appear in a unique realm only through the difference of sound, by differentiating the realm and so on, one can understand the differentiation, and time is also the same. If it is said that this pervades all things, even so, when some things are made clear by some difference of action, one can grasp the differentiation. When making letters clear, it becomes a branch of understanding meaning. Then, if a distinction is made, how can one understand that it is constant and pervasive? The text mentions "also in others" and so on. Just as it exists in other things such as bamboo and flowers, because it exists, it is established as constant and pervasive. Mentioning constant is to indicate approximately. Therefore, the text ends with "words" and so on, in order to conclude by establishing one's own view. The so-called "some like this" refers to the nature of sequence and so on. Then, if the sequence is a characteristic of time, or merely a characteristic of the sound that makes it clear, and not ultimately a characteristic of letters, then how is it a branch of understanding? If it is said that the characteristics of others are not others, the text mentions "the characteristics of others also" and so on. The so-called "saying" is, for example, "the one who enters the boat also goes" and so on. The word "entering the boat" represents all means of transportation. Just like the power of a horse and so on. For example, just as the power possessed by horses and so on, the person riding it reaches other places, and trees and so on become a branch of understanding walking, similarly, the sequence that exists only in sound is also a branch of understanding the meaning of letters. In this way, in order to extensively explain that sound is impermanent, a vow is made.
Chinese
因为以现量所见的量妨害而作结尾的缘故。 “一切是常性”等这样说了。因此，这里应当看作是结尾。所谓“一切”是不如实理解意义，不仅仅是成立文字是常性，那么是什么呢？也不是腭等和声音等。如所说，仅仅是说的时候就坏灭，那么有什么差别呢？其他的声音不能由其他理解意义，因此不能说其他的意义。如果不是坏灭，因此以前多次见到而理解意义，这样说是合理的，就像这样说的。为了也显示对于立宗，以自己的语言和承诺，以及教证和名声妨害的缘故。 “自己的语言”等广说，等等的语词包括与承诺相违等。所谓“已经显示”是没有见到与意义的关联。“声音不是能诠”等这样说。因此，所谓“理解意义的”是理解意义，即以了解意义而获得，即成立是理解意义获得。以成立理解意义在其他方面不合理，因为是常性的缘故，这是总结语。宣说以承诺妨害是：“意义的能诠能力是”等这样说了。 所谓“成立时”是成立所作的表达，这是通过暗示获得的，如果不是这样，因为不能为他人成立的缘故。说了以教证妨害：“各个论典”等，声音以理解意义的能力是哪些，对于那些的立宗妨害的缘故，这样补充说。宣说以名声妨害是：“以前所说”等，以前所说的理路是紧接着所说的偈颂。应当这样妨害： “以世间一切所确定的，以理解意义的能力等，对于一切论者的世间的，以名声妨害坏灭。”就是这样。为了忆念与比量等相违背以前所说的，说了“以前所说因”等，以前所说的因是处所和
English
Because it is concluded by proving that it is hindered by the valid cognition of what is seen by the present. "Everything is permanent," and so on, are mentioned. Therefore, it should be regarded as the conclusion here. The so-called "everything" is not appropriate as understanding the meaning, not only is it established that the letters are permanent, but what is it? It is also not the palate and so on, and the sound and so on. As it is said, it is destroyed only when it is said, so what is the difference? Other sounds cannot be understood by others, so they cannot express other meanings. If it is not destroyed, it is reasonable to say that the meaning is understood because it has been seen many times before, as it is said. In order to also show that the proposition is hindered by one's own words and promises, as well as by scriptures and fame. "One's own words" and so on are explained in detail, and the word "etc." includes contradictions with promises and so on. The so-called "already shown" is not seeing the connection with the meaning. "Sound is not expressive," and so on. Therefore, the so-called "understanding the meaning" is understanding the meaning, that is, obtaining it by understanding the meaning, that is, establishing that it is obtained by understanding the meaning. It is established that understanding the meaning is unreasonable in other aspects, because it is permanent, this is the concluding remark. Explaining the hindrance by promise is: "The ability to express meaning is," and so on. The so-called "when establishing" is the expression of what is to be established, which is obtained by implication, otherwise, because it cannot be established for others. It is said that the scriptures hinder: "Each treatise," and so on, the ability of sounds to understand the meaning is which, for the sake of hindering the proposition of those, it is supplemented in this way. Explaining the hindrance by fame is: "What was said before," and so on, the reasoning that was said before is the verse that was said immediately. It should be hindered in this way: "With what is determined by all the worlds, with the ability to understand the meaning, etc., for the world of all debaters, fame hinders destruction." That's it. In order to remember what was said before that contradicts inference and so on, it is said "the reason said before," and so on, the reason said before is the place and
Tibetan
དུས་སོགས་ཐ་དད་པའོ། །བ་ལང་སྒྲ་ཡིས་གསལ་བའི་བློ། །ཐམས་ཅད་མཚུངས་པའི་ཡུལ་ཅན་ནམ། །སྣ་ཚོགས་དོན་གྱི་ཡུལ་ཅན་ཡིན། །བ་ལང་སྙམ་དུ་སྐྱེས་པའི་ཕྱིར། །དེ་ལྟར་སྐྱེས་པའི་བློ་བཞིན་ན། །ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་དང༌། གཞན་ཡང་རྣ་བ་ལས་བྱུང་བའི། །ངོ་ཤེས་པ་ཡིས་སྒྲ་རྟག་དང༌། །ཁྱབ་པ་ཉིད་དུ་གནས་ན་དེ། །ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ཏུ་སུ་ཞིག་ངེས། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་སོ། །ལྷག་མ་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་སྐྱོན་དང་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཀྱི་སྐྱོན་འགའ་ཞིག་བསྟན་པར་འདོད་ནས་དེ་འཇིག་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྨོས་ཏེ། སྒྲ་ལ་འཇུག་པའི་རྣམ་པར་རྟོག་པ་གྲུབ་པའི་མཐའ་ཐ་དད་པས་འཆད་དེ། དེ་གྲངས་ཅན་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་སྒྲ་དང་རྡུལ་དང་མུན་པ་དང་སྙིང་སྟོབས་ཀྱི་རང་བཞིན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཡོན་ཏན་གསུམ་དུ་འདོད་དོ། །ནམ་མཁའི་གོས་ཅན་དག་གིས་ནི་གང་ཟག་སྟེ། གང་ཟག་ནི་རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་ཙམ་ལས་བརྗོད་དེ། དེ་དག་གི་འདི་ནི་གང་ཟག་ཅན་ཏེ། དེའི་བདག་ཉིད་ཅེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །གཟེགས་ཟན་པ་དག་གིས་ནི། ནམ་མཁའི་ཡོན་ཏན་དུ་འདོད་དོ། །འཇིག་རྟེན་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ནི། ཡི་གེ་ལས་ཐ་དད་པའི་སྒྲ་ཙམ་གྱི་བདག་ཉིད་དུ་སྟེ། ཇི་སྐད་དུ་སྙིམ་པར་ལྷུང་གི་བཤད་པ་ལས་ཡང་ན་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་ཚིག་གི་དོན་རྟོགས་པའི་སྒྲ་ཙམ་ནི་སྒྲ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བཤད་པ་ཡིན་བཞིན་ནོ། །སློབ་བྱེད་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ནི་རྗོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་རླུང་གི་ངོ་བོ་སྟེ། ཇི་སྐད་དུ་རླུང་ནི་སྒྲར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་བཤད་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །བརྡ་སྤྲོད་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ནི་ཚིགས་གསལ་བའི་བདག་ཉིད་དམ་ངག་གསལ་ བའི་བདག་ཉིད་འདོད་དོ། །ཇི་སྐད་དུ། མཐའ་ཡི་སྒྲ་དང་ལྷན་ཅིག་ཏུ། །སྒྲ་ཙམ་གྱིས་བསྐོས་ས་བོན་གྱིས། །ཡོངས་སུ་སྨིན་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ཡི། །བློ་ལ་སྒྲ་ནི་ངེས་པར་གཟུང༌། །ཞེས་བཤད་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །འབིགས་བྱེད་ན་གནས་པ་ནི། འདྲ་བ་སྟེ་མཚུངས་པར་འདོད་དོ། །སངས་རྒྱས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ནི་གཞན་ལ་ལྟོས་པ་སྟེ། གཞན་སེལ་བ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་གང་འདོད་པ་དེ་ལ། གལ་ཏེ་གྲངས་ཅན་ལ་སོགས་པས་འདོད་པའི་སྒྲ་དེ་དག་མི་རྟག་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྒྲུབ་པ་དེའི་ཚེ་གྲུབ་པ་ལ་སྒྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་སྐྱོན་ཡིན་ཏེ། རང་གི་ངོ་བོར་བསྟན་བྱ་བ། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདིས་གྲུབ་པ་ངོ་བོར་བཀག་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །སྤྱོད་པ་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་འདི་འདྲ་བའི་སྒྲ་རྟག་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་འདོད་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གཞན་ཡང་ཁོ་བོ་ཅག་ལ་ཡོན་ཏན་གསུམ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་བདག་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་གྱི་སྒྲ་ཆོས་ཅན་མ་གྲུབ
Chinese
时间和地点等是不同的。牛叫声所显现的智慧，是具有一切相同境，还是具有各种意义的境？因为生起牛叫的想法，就像那样生起的智慧一样，这是集合的意义。另外，从耳朵产生的，通过认识而认为声音是常恒的，并且存在于普遍之中，那么谁会颠倒地确定这一点呢？这是通过这个来确定的。剩余的想要显示宗派的过失和理由的过失，所以说了“那是坏灭的”等等。对于声音的理解，以不同的宗派来解释，即数论派认为声音是声音、尘、黑暗和勇气的自性，所以认为是三种 गुण (梵文天城体：गुण，梵文罗马拟音：guṇa，汉语字面意思： गुण)。裸体派则认为是补特伽罗，补特伽罗只是微尘而已，他们的这个是具有补特伽罗的，是它的自性，这是它的定义。胜论派则认为是虚空的 गुण (梵文天城体：गुण，梵文罗马拟音：guṇa，汉语字面意思： गुण)。世间人则认为是与文字不同的声音的自性，如《入中论》的解释中说，或者世间上理解词义的声音才是声音。学习者则认为是并非表达的风的体性，如说风会变成声音一样。声明者则认为是语词清晰的自性或语言清晰的自性。如说：与结尾的声音一起，仅仅通过声音所设定的种子，完全成熟，对于智慧来说，声音是必须把握的。如是说。存在于穿透者中，是相似的，即认为是相同的。佛教徒则认为是依赖于他者的，对于所说的“他者排除”的任何观点。如果数论派等所认为的声音被证明是无常的，那么这就是所立上成立能立的过失，因为“自己的体性应被显示”，这阻碍了已成立的体性。行者们也不想证明这种声音是常恒的。此外，对于我们来说，具有三种 गुण (梵文天城体：गुण，梵文罗马拟音：guṇa，汉语字面意思： गुण)等自性的特殊声音，法相是不成立的。
English
Times and places, etc., are different. The intelligence that is revealed by the sound of a cow's moo, does it have the same object for everything, or does it have objects of various meanings? Because the thought of a cow's moo arises, just like the intelligence that arises in that way, that is the meaning of the collection. Furthermore, that which arises from the ear, through recognition, considers sound to be permanent, and if it exists in universality, then who would definitely reverse this? This is determined by this. The remainder, wanting to show some of the faults of the subject and the faults of the reason, therefore speaks of "that which is destroyed," and so on. The understanding of sound is explained by different tenets, that is, the Samkhyas consider sound to be the nature of sound, dust, darkness, and courage, so they consider it to be the three gunas (Sanskrit Devanagari: गुण, Sanskrit Romanization: guṇa, Chinese literal meaning: गुण). The Digambaras consider it to be a person, and a person is only a minute particle, and for them, this is something that possesses a person, it is its nature, this is its definition. The Vaisheshikas consider it to be a quality of space. The worldly people consider it to be the nature of sound that is different from letters, as it says in the explanation of the Madhyamakavatara, or in the world, the sound that understands the meaning of words is sound. The students consider it to be the nature of wind that is not expressive, as it is said that wind turns into sound. The grammarians consider it to be the nature of clear words or the nature of clear language. As it is said: Together with the final sound, only through the seed established by sound, it is completely matured, and for intelligence, sound must be grasped. Thus it is said. That which exists in the piercer is similar, that is, it is considered to be the same. The Buddhists consider it to be dependent on others, for whatever view is expressed as "other exclusion." If the sound that is considered by the Samkhyas, etc., is proven to be impermanent, then this is the fault of proving what is already proven on the subject, because "one's own nature should be shown," which obstructs the established nature. The practitioners also do not want to prove that this kind of sound is permanent. Furthermore, for us, the specific sound that has the nature of the three gunas (Sanskrit Devanagari: गुण, Sanskrit Romanization: guṇa, Chinese literal meaning: गुण), etc., the subject is not established.