Chinese
如果说与共同的方面相违背，那么就提到了所谓的常的体性等等。以前所说的，是坚固的事物恒常。因为已经承诺一切有为法都是无常的，所以从常的角度来说，有为法本身是不可能存在的，这一点要明确。另外，如果说的是除了蕴、界、处之外的行为，那就与已成立的宗义相违背。比如，世尊所说的“一切婆罗门”就是指五蕴、十二处和十八界。如果否认“行为”这个说法，那么，因为法与自己的体性无有差别，所以它也会变成一切时。如果是这样，那么行为的消逝就是过去，获得它就是现在，没有获得它就是未来，因为这种原因，时间和类似的区分在这里不会改变。如果因为自己的缘故，行为的这种区分会变成消逝、获得和未获得，那么时间的区分就会在这里改变。如果不对它们进行区分，那么它们是不存在的，因为它们恒常存在，所以会与一个体性相结合。因为它存在于此，所以它与此相关。以“行为恒常”等等来说，是通过承诺相互矛盾的方式来进行嘲笑。那么，如果这样，色等法不是恒常存在的，仅仅是“是”和“存在”这两个词语结合在一起。因为它存在于此，所以它与此相关。以“行为恒常”等等来说，是通过承诺相互矛盾的方式来进行嘲笑。那么，如果这样，色等法不是恒常存在的，这将会成为一个推论，因为与行为没有差别。如果有人问：法被称为恒常存在。那么，即使这样，法也会变成与行为不同的东西吗？要说的是，要说的也与法不同。天神是指自在天等等。他们不考虑合理与不合理，也没有行为，而是自由自在地行动。因为他们按照自己的意愿自由自在地行动，所以不会用合理与不合理来观察。这里也是如此。
English
If it is said to contradict the common aspects, then the characteristics of permanence, etc., are mentioned. What was said before is that the stable things are permanent. Since it has been promised that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, it is impossible for conditioned phenomena to exist from the perspective of permanence, and this must be made clear. Furthermore, if one speaks of actions other than the skandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas, it contradicts the established tenets. For example, the Blessed One said that "all Brahmins" refers to the five skandhas, twelve ayatanas, and eighteen dhatus. If one denies the term "action," then, because the dharma is not different from its own nature, it will also become all-time. If that is the case, then the cessation of action is the past, obtaining it is the present, and not obtaining it is the future. Because of this, the distinctions of time and the like will not change here. If, for its own sake, this distinction of action changes into cessation, obtaining, and not obtaining, then the distinction of time will change here. If they are not distinguished, then they do not exist, because they are constantly present, so they will be combined with one nature. Because it exists here, it is related to it. By saying "action is constant," etc., it is a mockery through promising mutual contradictions. So, if that is the case, the form and other dharmas are not constantly existent, only the words "is" and "exists" are combined. Because it exists here, it is related to it. By saying "action is constant," etc., it is a mockery through promising mutual contradictions. So, if that is the case, it would follow that form and other dharmas are not constantly existent, because there is no difference from action. If someone asks: Dharma is said to be constantly existent. Then, even so, will dharma become something different from action? What is to be said is that what is to be said is also not different from dharma. Gods refer to Ishvara and others. They do not consider what is reasonable or unreasonable, and they have no conduct, but act freely. Because they act freely according to their own desires, they do not observe with reason or unreason. It is the same here.
Chinese
词也。又，若以他事为未来等，则不应说以事门安立诸时，以其错谬故。若谓观待事之自性而有未来等，如是，诸物亦应成未来等。以事为相有何用耶？又，若谓恐成错谬之过，故于事亦许有事，则于彼亦有差别等思择之难，及无穷之过。若非异体，则事应成一切时，以无差别故，如法之自性。此说者，为贤护。贤护言：虽与自性无异，然见能别法，如色等之有碍等。如彼等虽如义无别，然有碍与无碍、可示与不可示，如是，以事亦能别法。此非切要，如是，此处若许物与事无异，则以一体性之物，事无差别故，以彼力，时之差别不应理。此乃切要。地等以各别自相异故，是异体，是理。何以故？业则成有碍，如受等，有者是无碍，非有碍者即是无碍。何以故？若法有时成有碍等，则地等物之体性随行唯一者，无有也。 若尔云何？谓无分物如是，是遮遣同类与异类，谓与自性无异之法，一异。
English
Also, if one considers other actions as being in the future, then it should not be said that times are established through the door of actions, because it is erroneous. If it is said that future times exist in dependence on the nature of actions, then things should also become future times. What is the use of actions as characteristics? Furthermore, if one thinks that it is not permissible because it would become a fault of error, and therefore one also accepts actions in actions, then there are similar difficulties of deliberation and investigation regarding differences, etc., and the fault of being endless. If it is not a different entity, then actions should become all times, because there is no difference, like the nature of dharma. This was said by Bhadanta Sangharakshita. Sangharakshita said: Although not different from its own nature, it is seen to distinguish dharmas, like the obstructedness, etc., of forms, etc. Just as those are not different from the meaning, but there are obstructed and unobstructed, demonstrable and undemonstrable, so too, actions can distinguish dharmas. This is not essential, because here, if it is accepted that things and actions are not different, then because the actions of things of one entity are not different, by that power, the distinctions of time are not reasonable. This is essential. Earth, etc., are different entities because of their different characteristics, which is reasonable. Why? Actions become obstructed, like feelings, etc., and some are unobstructed, but what is obstructed is not unobstructed. Why? If a dharma sometimes becomes obstructed, etc., then there is no single entity that follows the nature of things like earth, etc. If so, what is it? It is said that indivisible things are like that, which is the negation of similar and dissimilar classes, saying that one dharma that is not different from its own nature is one and different.