Chinese
是将其作为特殊性的心识而生起的。同样，这些火和烟之所以存在于山等处所的特殊性中，是因为将其作为山等特殊性的心识。哪些火和烟具有牛粪柴火，那些就是具有柴火的。哪些处所具有那些，那些就是处所。那些既具有牛粪柴火，也是其处所，这样组合词语。那些本身就是特殊性，哪些具有那些等等的物质是粗糙的土地等等，土地是凯拉等等，凯耶、凯耶等等的特殊性。其处所的特殊性是牛粪、柴火等等，那是心识，通过第七种连接的分类来归纳。任何推理者以那种方式成为显现的心识，生起，那就是处所中存在的烟的标志，何时在其他时间认识到火，这样连接，那时认识到的是显现的自性，就是正量，是其他的正量，这是意义。或者，因为先前认识的原因，认识到火，这样连接，如果对火是否存在或者已经熄灭有怀疑，那么存在怀疑的事物就是那样的，因为那既是那也是事物，所以认识到那样的事物，这样组合词语。如所说的那样，通过显现所见的关联，这种比量是特殊所见的比量，这样说在辨别中存在。一般所见的阐述是提到火和烟等等，此处的关联是阐述者对一般所见的比量，因为去了其他地方而记得太阳运行为例证，对此有责难，如果因为其他火和其他烟依靠共同法而进行推测，那时从火和烟中是一般所见的比量，为什么阐述者舍弃了心中明晰的火和烟的亲近性，而仅仅以太阳作为一般所见的例子，为了消除这个责难，从鸠摩罗山进行了解释。
English
It is generated by making it the mind of specificity. Similarly, these fire and smoke exist in the specificity of places such as mountains, because they are made the mind of the specificity of mountains and so on. Those fires and smoke that have cow dung firewood are those that have firewood. Those places that have those are the places. Those are both those that have cow dung firewood and are also their places, thus combining the words. Those themselves are the specificity, those that have those and so on, the substances are rough land and so on, the land is Kela and so on, the specificity of Kye, Khye and so on. The specificity of its place is cow dung, firewood and so on, that is the mind, which is summarized by the seventh connection of classification. Any reasoner who has become such a manifest mind, arising, that is the sign of smoke existing in that place, when at other times one recognizes the fire, thus connecting, at that time the recognition is the nature of manifestation, which is valid cognition, it is another valid cognition, this is the meaning. Or, because of the cause of previous recognition, one recognizes the fire, thus connecting, if there is doubt about whether the fire exists or has been extinguished, then the thing about which there is doubt is like that, because that is both that and a thing, so one recognizes that kind of thing, thus combining the words. As has been said, through the connection seen by manifestation, this inference is the inference of special seeing, thus it is said to exist in discernment. The explanation of general seeing is to mention fire and smoke and so on, the connection here is that the explainer makes an example of the inference of general seeing, because going to another place remembers the sun's movement, there is a reproach for this, if because other fire and other smoke rely on common dharma to infer, then at that time from fire and smoke it is the inference of general seeing, why did the explainer abandon the closeness of the fire and smoke that are clear in the mind, and only take the sun as an example of general seeing, in order to eliminate this reproach, the explanation was made from Kumara Mountain.
Chinese
为了表达疑惑，所以说了“火和烟不同”。用共同点来衡量，对于通常所见的推论，应该用火和烟本身来做例子。但因为讲述者用太阳做例子，因为太阳的运行在任何时候都不是显而易见的。认为太阳的运行在任何时候都不是显而易见的，所以认为太阳的运行完全是通常所见的推论，而不是特别所见的。为了表明不混淆的境地，才说太阳本身是例子，但并非说烟和火没有通常所见的推论。因此， 用“对于此”等来指出过失。所谓“遍及”是指遍及烟和火等一切事物。如果说是刹那，但因为是同一个延续，所以是同一个。说了“假立”，那时是假立的同一个，但并非究竟的，因为究竟上没有丝毫的停留。如果是那样，以及在那处所存在的那本身，这对于不合理的假立事物本身也是不合理的。因此，为了理解存在疑惑的事物，所以说“没有关联”。如果又认为依靠分别念所虚构的同一个来特别见到，但并非真实，那么，说了“你的量，没有境地”等。这样想，如果消除的是坏灭，而种姓是不坏灭的，这样就成了真实的同一个，但并非没有境地。如果这样想，说了“清晰的事物”等。所谓清晰的事物就是种姓。所谓“如果”就是承认。因为种姓和清晰等被他人认为是同一个，所以清晰的事物坏灭，种姓怎么会存在呢？如果不是那样，因为成立和安乐是不同的，所以必须承认它们是不同的。所谓“如果存在”这本身就是承认后说的，暂时在一个时候，因为种姓被广泛遮止，所以怎么会存在呢？即使存在，如果那是真实的，那也会变成刹那，因为是遍及的刹那。
English
In order to express doubt, it is said that "fire and smoke are different." To measure by commonality, for inferences that are commonly seen, one should use fire and smoke themselves as examples. But because the narrator uses the sun as an example, it is because the movement of the sun is not obvious at all times. Thinking that the movement of the sun is not obvious at all times, it is thought that the movement of the sun is entirely a commonly seen inference, rather than a particularly seen one. In order to show the state of non-confusion, it is said that the sun itself is an example, but it is not that smoke and fire do not have commonly seen inferences. Therefore, Faults are pointed out by "for this" and so on. The so-called "pervading" refers to pervading all things such as smoke and fire. If it is said to be momentary, but because it is the same continuation, it is the same. "Imputed" is said, at that time it is the imputed same, but it is not ultimate, because there is no slightest stay in the ultimate. If that is the case, and that itself that exists in that place, this is also unreasonable for the unreasonable imputed thing itself. Therefore, in order to understand the things that exist in doubt, it is said that "there is no connection." If it is also thought that relying on the same that is fabricated by discrimination, one sees it particularly, but it is not true, then, it is said that "your measure, without a realm" and so on. Thinking like this, if what is eliminated is destruction, and the lineage is not destroyed, then it becomes the true same, but it is not without a realm. If you think like this, it is said that "clear things" and so on. The so-called clear thing is the lineage. The so-called "if" is to admit. Because lineage and clarity etc. are considered the same by others, so the clear thing is destroyed, how can the lineage exist? If it is not so, because establishment and happiness are different, it must be admitted that they are different. The so-called "if it exists" is itself said after admitting, temporarily at one time, because the lineage is widely prevented, so how can it exist? Even if it exists, if that is true, then it will become momentary, because it is a pervading moment.
Tibetan
་འཇིག་པ་བསྒྲུབས་ཟིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གཞན་ཡང་གང་གི་ཚེ་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའི་ཡོངས་སུ་བཅད་དེ། སླར་ཡང་རྟགས་དེ་ཉིད་ལས་མེ་དེ་ཉིད་ཡོངས་སུ་གཅོད་པ་དེའི་ཚེ་ཡང་གང་གིས་མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་མཐོང་བ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་འདོད་པ་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་མཐོང་བ་ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་མི་འདོད། རྟོགས་ཟིན་པའི་དོན་རྟོགས་པ་པོ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ནི་མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་མཐོང་བ་ལ་ཡང་མཚུངས་སོ། ། བར་དུ་འཇུག་པའི་ཐེ་ཚོམ་ལྡོག་པར་བྱེད་པའི་མངོན་སུམ་གྱིས་མཐོང་བ་ལས་བླ་ལྷག་པ་ཡོད་དོ་ཞེ་ན། མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པས་མཐོང་བ་ལས་བླ་ལྷག་པར་ཡོད་པར་མཚུངས་ཏེ། དེ་ལྟ་བས་ན་ཐམས་ཅད་དུ་སྤྱིར་མཐོང་བ་ཉིད་ཡིན་གྱི། སྐད་ཅིག་གིས་འཇིག་པའི་དངོས་པོ་རྣམས་ལ་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཁྱད་པར་མཐོང་བ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཅུང་ཟད་མེད་དོ། །ལྟ་བ་ངན་པ་ཁ་ཅིག་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཕུར་བུ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའོ། །རྗོད་པར་བྱེད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་དེ་ལྟ་བུ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཚུལ་གྱིས་སོ། །འདིས་ནི་རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་འགལ་བ་བཤད་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འདི་ལྟར་ཚིག་གི་རྟགས་ལས་བརྗོད་པར་འདོད་པ་རྟོག་པར་བྱེད་དོ་སྙམ་དུ་བསམས་ནས། གཞན་ལ་རང་གི་བསམ་པ་རིག་པར་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱིར་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཚད་མ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པ་དང༌། དེ་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་སྨྲ་བ་ན་དེ་ཉིད་འགེགས་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཕན་ཚུན་འགལ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདིའི་སུན་འབྱིན་པ་ཕྱིས་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེ་ལ་རེ་ཞིག་ཚུ་རོལ་མཛེས་པ་ཚད་མ་འགོད་པ་ནི་རང་གི་དོན་གྱི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ནི་ཚད་མ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཚུལ་གསུམ་པའི་རྟགས་སྔོན་དུ་འགྲོ་བ་ཅན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ལོག་པའི་ཤེས་པ་བཞིན་ནོ། །མིག་ལ་སོགས་པ་ནི་གཞན་གྱི་དོན་བྱེད་དེ་བསགས་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་མལ་ཆ་དང་སྟན་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཡན་ལག་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་འདི་འདོད་པ་ལ་གནོད་པ་བྱེད་པའི་ཚུལ་གསུམ་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ལོག་པའི་ཤེས་པ་བཞིན་དུ་འདིའི་བསྐྱེད་པར་བྱ་བ་སྟེ་ཚུལ་གསུམ་པའི་རྟགས་ལས་བྱུང་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདིར་ཚུལ་གསུམ་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའི་རྒྱུ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཚུལ་གཉིས་པ་བཞིན་ནོ། །གཞན་ཡང་ཐམས་ཅད་དུ་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ནི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་དང་འགལ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། བརྗོད་པར་འདོད་པའི་བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་ཆོས་ནི་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་ཁྱད་པར་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། འདིའི་ཚོགས་པའི་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་རང་གི་ངོ་བོ་བཞིན་ནོ། །འ
Chinese
因为已经完成了毁灭。另外，当以推断完全确定时，再次从那个征象中完全确定那个火的时候，为什么不认为以现量见到是特别的，特别地见到呢？如果说因为是已经证悟之义的证悟者，所以不认为。不是的，这对于现量见也是相同的。如果说，有比能使介入的怀疑止息的现量见更超胜的。不是的，与以推断所见相比，有更超胜的也是相同的。因此，一切时处都是一般的见，对于刹那坏灭的事物们，名为推断特别见的事物丝毫也没有。所谓一些恶见者，是指富兰那等人。所谓宣说，是指像“推断不是量”等等那样的方式。这解释了与自己的言词相违背，像这样，心想从言词的征象中推断出想要表达的意义。为了让别人了解自己的想法，在名言中显示推断是量，当说那不是量时，为了遮止那本身，是互相违背的。对此的驳斥，之后会清楚地说明。对此，暂时破斥顺世外道建立量，即自己的意义的推断不是量，因为是具有三相之征象先行的缘故，如同颠倒的识。眼睛等是为了利他而积聚的缘故，如同床具和坐垫等支分一样，这是因为是损害所欲的三相的缘故。如同颠倒的识一样，此的生起应当是，是从三相之征象产生的。在此，三相本身也不是推断的因，因为有非推断的缘故，如同二相。另外，在一切处所成立，是与推断相违背的，想要表达的所成立之法不是有法之差别，因为是此等集合的一部分的缘故，如同有法自己的自性。
English
Because destruction has been accomplished. Furthermore, when it is completely determined by inference, and again when that fire is completely determined from that very sign, why is it not considered that seeing with direct perception is special, seeing it in a special way? If it is said that it is not considered because it is the one who realizes the meaning that has already been realized. It is not so, because that is the same for direct perception as well. If it is said that there is something superior to direct perception that makes the doubt of intervening cease. It is not so, it is the same that there is something superior compared to what is seen by inference. Therefore, at all times and places, it is just general seeing, and there is nothing at all called special seeing by inference for things that perish in an instant. Some with wrong views are like Pūraṇa and others. What is called declaring is like the way of saying that inference is not valid, and so on. This explains the contradiction with one's own words, like this, thinking that one infers the meaning one wants to express from the sign of words. In order to make others understand one's own thoughts, one shows in terminology that inference is valid, and when one says that it is not valid, it is mutually contradictory in order to prevent that itself. The refutation of this will be clearly explained later. To this, for the time being, the Cārvākas refute the establishment of valid cognition, that is, inference for one's own sake is not valid cognition, because it is preceded by a sign with three aspects, like a reversed consciousness. Eyes and so on are accumulated for the sake of benefiting others, like the limbs of bedding and cushions, because it is the third aspect that harms what is desired. Like a reversed consciousness, the arising of this should be, it arises from a sign with three aspects. Here, the three aspects themselves are not the cause of inference, because there is non-inference, like the two aspects. Furthermore, establishing in all places is contrary to inference, the dharma to be established that one wants to express is not a distinction of the subject of dharma, because it is one part of this collection, like the own nature of the subject of dharma.