Chinese
就像执幻觉的意识具有确定的原因一样。因为那没有如所说的那样成为量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，有效认知）的作用。还有，将海螺认知为黄色，将宝石的光芒认知为宝石，那些也不是量。因为那没有如实显现事物和确定。以现量（ प्रत्यक्ष ，pratyakṣa，直接认知）来执取或不执取，是依显现而定，而不仅仅是不欺骗事物。在此，没有如实显现处所、时间和自性及状态。处所和时间也是使事物自性各异的原因。处所和时间本身发生变化不是这样的，如果不是这样，那么相异的说法将中断。比量（ अनुमान ，anumāna，推论认知）是分别念（ विकल्प ，vikalpa，概念）的自性，具有总相的对境，因此不是因为事物不显现而安立为具有事物的对境。那么是什么呢？是依确定的缘故。如所说：不确定的诸确定，那是它们如何成为对境？就像所说的那样。如果是这样，那么比量虽然空无显现，但由于见到无则不生的意义的力量所生，通过与事物相关联，因为是量，所以无疑必须依赖于对它的无则不生之确定。如果不是这样，比量不可能产生，因此比量与现量不相同。然而，通过“识的自性”等，如果由他者对他者是量，则显示为互相依赖。就像这样，首先遣除分别念的那些进入对是量的确定，在进入时也因为对是量的确定而互相依赖，如果具有分别念者在所希望的意义不确定时如何进入呢？通过“陈述”等来回答。进入有两种，即具有成办意义的意义和对是量的确定的意义。如果对那第一个进入存在怀疑，那么如何变化已经显示了，因为仅仅通过确定现量不显现而进入。因此，如果那样，则不会导致具有分别念者衰退。
English
Just as the consciousness that grasps illusions has a definite cause. Because that does not have the function of a valid cognition ( प्रमाण , pramāṇa, valid cognition) as stated. Also, the cognition of a conch shell as yellow, and the cognition of the light of a jewel as a jewel, those are also not valid cognitions. Because that does not have the appearance and certainty of things as they are. Grasping or not grasping by direct perception ( प्रत्यक्ष , pratyakṣa, direct cognition) depends on appearance, and not just on not deceiving things. Here, there is no appearance of place, time, nature, and state as they are. Place and time are also the cause of making the nature of things different. It is not the case that place and time themselves change, and if it is not like that, then the statement of difference will be interrupted. Inference ( अनुमान , anumāna, inferential cognition) is the nature of conceptual thought ( विकल्प , vikalpa, concept), and has a general object, so it is not established as having an object of things because things do not appear. So what is it? It is because of certainty. As it is said: What is uncertain among the certainties, how are those their objects? Like what is said. If that is the case, then although inference is empty of appearance, it is born from the power of seeing the meaning of not arising without, and through being related to things, because it is a valid cognition, it is undoubtedly necessary to rely on the certainty of its not arising without. If it is not like that, inference cannot arise, therefore inference is not the same as direct perception. However, through "the nature of consciousness" and so on, if it is a valid cognition from one to another, it is shown to be mutually dependent. Just like this, those who first dispel conceptual thoughts enter into the certainty of being valid cognitions, and when entering, they also rely on each other because of the certainty of being valid cognitions. If those who have conceptual thoughts enter when the desired meaning is uncertain, how will they enter? The answer is given through "statement" and so on. There are two kinds of entry, namely, the meaning of having the meaning of accomplishing and the meaning of certainty of being valid cognition. If there is doubt about that first entry, then how it changes has already been shown, because it is entered only by determining that direct perception does not appear. Therefore, if that is the case, it will not lead to the decline of those who have conceptual thoughts.
Chinese
诶，因为怀疑那个道理，也见到如同农夫等一样进入（田地），所以这样想。因为预先进行了推测，所以也不能说农夫等以确定的方法进入，因为方法依赖于从方法产生，因为方法产生不确定，所以那个确定是不行的。为了显示对于第二个进入，即使怀疑那个是量，也是非常合理的。说了“对于谁那个的量”等，因为从哪里为了什么那个确定是量而以怀疑进入，所以那个人方法是确定的。那样的话，因为对于方法的境没有怀疑，所以进入是合理的。如果问在那里方法是如何确定的呢？说了“那样即使以怀疑进入”，意思是即使量也以怀疑进入。剩余的因为容易理解所以没有分别解释。说了“能起作用显现的知识”，因为显示了其他从能起作用的知识确定是量是不确定的，所以成立没有穷尽，因为“那个的因是事物”。意思是能起作用的知识的因，追问为什么不是量呢？说了“那不是”等来回答，暂时如果和说外境存在的佛教徒辩论，第一颂显示了那个没有成立。像这样说外境存在的那个人，因为对于境不欺骗，所以认为是量，不是因为对于能起作用的知识不欺骗。梦中也没有对于境不欺骗，因为对于梦的所有状态都是错乱的，对于所有都没有争论。在那里所有知识都只是产生没有意义的，所以是没有境的，因此对于醒来状态产生的知识，因为进入量的相，所以想其他人不应该错乱。另外进入不是预先进行，不稳定，以及因为在错乱的梦中能起作用的知识和那个相反的是醒来的状态，所以。
English
Eh, because of doubting that reason, it is also seen that they enter (the field) like farmers, so I thought like that. Because speculation was carried out in advance, it cannot be said that farmers and others enter by a definite method, because the method depends on arising from the method, and because the arising of the method is uncertain, that determination is not possible. To show that even if there is doubt about that being a valid cognition for the second entry, it is very reasonable. It is said, "For whom that is a valid cognition," etc., because from where, for what, that certainty is a valid cognition, it is entered with doubt, so that person's method is certain. In that case, since there is no doubt about the object of the method, it is reasonable to enter. If asked how that method is determined there? It is said, "Even if entering with doubt like that," meaning that even a valid cognition enters with doubt. The rest is not explained separately because it is easy to understand. It is said, "The consciousness that appears to function," because it shows that others are uncertain about determining that a valid cognition is from a functioning consciousness, so it establishes that there is no exhaustion, because "the cause of that is the object." It means the cause of the functioning consciousness, asking why it is not a valid cognition? It is answered by saying "That is not," etc. For the time being, if arguing with Buddhists who say that external objects exist, the first verse shows that that is not established. Like this, that person who says that external objects exist, because they do not deceive with respect to the object, they think it is a valid cognition, not because they do not deceive with respect to the functioning consciousness. There is also no non-deception with respect to the object in dreams, because all states of dreams are confused, and there is no dispute for all. There, all consciousnesses only arise without meaning, so it is without an object, therefore, for the consciousness that arises in the waking state, because the characteristics of valid cognition enter, so I thought that others should not be confused. Furthermore, entering is not something that goes ahead, it is unstable, and because the functioning consciousness in a confused dream is the opposite of that, it is the waking state, so.
Tibetan
མ་པ་དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་ཚད་མ་ཉིད་རྨི་ལམ་གྱི་མ་ངེས་པ་གང་ལས་ཡིན། ཅི་སྟེ་རྣལ་འབྱོར་སྤྱོད་པ་ལ་རྩོད་པ་བྱེད་ན། དེ་ལ་ཡང་འདི་ནི་མངོན་སུམ་ལ་ཉེ་བར་མི་མཁོ་སྟེ། འདི་ལྟར། ཚད་མ་སླུ་བ་མེད་ཅན་གྱི། །ཤེས་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདི་ནི་ཐ་སྙད་པའི་ཚད་མའི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཡིན་པས་དེ་ལས་དོན་བྱེད་པར་སྣང་བའི་ཤེས་པ་རིགས་པ་ཉིད་མི་སླུ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ལྟར་སྐྱེ་བ་ན་འཇིག་རྟེན་དེ་ཐ་ཉད་དུ་བྱེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། དོན་དུ་གཉེར་བ་འཇུག་པ་ནི་དེའི་དོན་དུ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེ་ཉིད་ལ་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་ཐ་སྙད་ཐམས་ཅད་དོན་དམ་པ་པ་ཉིད་དུ་མངོན་པར་ཞེན་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཐ་སྙད་པའི་ཤེས་པ་དེ་ཡང་སད་པའི་གནས་ སྐབས་ན་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་གྱི་རྨི་ལམ་གྱི་གནས་སྐབས་ཀྱིས་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ཡིན་དང༌། སད་པ་དེ་ཤེས་པ་ཡིན་པ་ན་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཁྱད་པར་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཅིག་ཤོས་ཀྱིས་འཁྲུལ་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདི་སྙམ་དུ་རྣམ་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས་སྣང་བ་མཚུངས་ན་ཡང་འདི་ནི་སད་པའི་གནས་སྐབས་སོ། །འདི་ནི་རྨི་ལམ་གྱི་གནས་སྐབས་སོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་དད་པའི་ངེས་པ་འདི་ཇི་ལྟར་ཡིན་སྙམ་དུ་སེམས་ན། དེའི་ཕྱིར། རང་རིག་པའི་ངོ་བོའི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྨོས་ཏེ། གོ་བར་ཟད་དོ། །བརྒྱ་ལ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་གཞན་གྱི་ཀླན་ཀ་དོགས་པར་བྱེད་དེ། གལ་ཏེ་གཞན་ལས་ཚད་མ་ཉིད་དུ་ངེས་ན་དེའི་ཚེ་ཚད་མ་གཞན་གྱི་གཞལ་བར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་གཞལ་བྱ་ཉིད་དུ་འགྱུར་ན། ཚད་མ་ཉིད་གཞལ་བྱར་རིགས་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་རྒོལ་ན་དེ་ནི་འགལ་བ་མེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཞེས་བྱ་བས་ལན་འདེབས་ཏེ། དེ་ནི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་འདི་ནའོ། །ལྟོས་པ་ཐ་དད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རྒྱུ་དང་འབྲས་བུ་དང་མ་དང་བུ་མོའི་ཐ་སྙད་བཞིན་དུ་མི་འགལ་ལོ། །འདི་ཉིད་སྟོན་པ་ནི་དེའི་གཟུང་བྱའི་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྟེ། ཤེས་པ་དེས་གཟུང་བར་བྱའི་དངོས་པོ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ཚད་མ་ཁོ་ན་ཡིན་གྱི་གཞལ་བྱ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ལ། རྣམ་པར་འཇོག་པའི་ཚད་མ་གཞན་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ནི་གཞལ་བྱ་ཁོ་ན་ཡིན་གྱི་ཚད་མ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་འཆོལ་བའི་ཉེས་པ་མེད་དེ། རྒྱུ་དང་འབྲས་བུ་ཉིད་སོགས་བཞིན། །ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ལྟོས་པ་ཐ་དད་པས་མ་འཆོལ་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །དེ་ལྟ་བུ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པས་མཇུག་སྡུད་པར་བྱེད་དོ། །གཞན་ལ་ནི་འདོད་པ་ལྡོག་ཕྱིར། ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་གཞན་ཡང་ཡིན་ལ་འདོད་པ་ཡང་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་ཚིག་རྣམ་པར་སྦྱར་བའམ། གཞན་ཡང་དེ་མི་སླུ་བ་གཞན་ལ་འདོད་པ་ནི་གཞན་ལ་འདོད་པ
Chinese
像那样的量本身，从何而来对梦境的不确定性呢？如果与瑜伽行派辩论，那么对于他们来说，这也不太需要接近现量，就像这样： 量是无欺骗性的。 所谓的“知识”是世俗量的特征，因此，从那之中，显现为能成办义利的知识，其自性是不欺骗的，因为那样产生时，世界会将其视为真实，因为追求目标是为了那个目标。因为在世间，所有世俗的说法都显现为真实的。那个世俗的知识也只是存在于醒觉的状态，而不是在梦境的状态。如果是那样，并且醒觉是知识，那么依靠所谓的差别，就不会被另一者所欺骗。如果有人认为，即使所有方式的显现都相同，但如何确定这是醒觉的状态，这是梦境的状态呢？因此，说了“自证的体性”等等，这只是为了理解而已。说了“百”等等，是为了避免其他人的责难。如果从其他方面确定是量，那么那时，量应该被其他的量所衡量，因此它会变成所衡量之物。量本身也不应该是所衡量之物，因为这是矛盾的。如果这样反驳，那么回答说，那不是没有矛盾的，那个“那”指的就是这里。因为所依赖的不同，就像原因和结果、母亲和女儿的说法一样，所以没有矛盾。为了说明这一点，说了“它的所取”等等，依赖于那个知识所要取的事物，它只是量，而不是所衡量之物。依赖于分别安立的其他量，它只是所衡量之物，而不是量，因此没有混淆的过失，就像原因和结果等一样。所谓“就像”是指依靠所依赖的不同而没有混淆。像那样等等是用来总结的。所谓“对于其他则是为了颠倒意愿”，意思是说，既是其他，也是意愿，或者说，对于其他，认为那是不欺骗的，就是对于其他的意愿。
English
How can such a valid cognition itself be uncertain about dreams? If you argue with the Yogacara school, then this is not very necessary to be close to direct perception for them. Like this: A valid cognition is non-deceptive. This so-called "knowledge" is the characteristic of conventional valid cognition, so from that, the nature of the knowledge that appears to accomplish the purpose is non-deceptive, because when it arises in that way, the world considers it to be true, because pursuing the goal is for that goal. Because in the world, all conventional statements appear to be true. That conventional knowledge also only exists in the waking state, not in the dream state. If that is the case, and waking is knowledge, then relying on the so-called difference, it will not be deceived by the other. If someone thinks that even if the appearances of all ways are the same, how can it be determined that this is the waking state and this is the dream state? Therefore, it is said "the nature of self-awareness" etc., which is only for understanding. Saying "hundred" etc. is to avoid the accusations of others. If it is determined to be a valid cognition from other aspects, then at that time, the valid cognition should be measured by other valid cognitions, so it will become the object to be measured. The valid cognition itself should not be the object to be measured, because this is contradictory. If you refute in this way, then the answer is that it is not without contradiction, that "that" refers to here. Because the dependencies are different, just like the terms of cause and effect, mother and daughter, there is no contradiction. To illustrate this, it is said "its object to be grasped" etc., depending on what is to be grasped by that knowledge, it is only a valid cognition, not the object to be measured. Depending on other valid cognitions that are established separately, it is only the object to be measured, not the valid cognition, so there is no fault of confusion, just like cause and effect etc. The so-called "like" means that there is no confusion due to the different dependencies. Like that etc. is used to summarize. The so-called "for others, it is to reverse the intention" means that it is both other and intention, or that for others, thinking that it is non-deceptive is the intention for others.