Chinese
说“是”却没有成立，仅此而已。为了成立辩论，所说的一切都是因为无常。在那里，等等。其中与已成立的宗义相违背的是，正理论者的“声音是无常的，因为是根识所取”，这与他们所承认的常法相违背，因为事物和性质等根识所取的事物都被认为是常法，如果出现无常，就与已成立的宗义相违背。 与誓言的意义相违背的是数论者的“果存在于因中，因为显现真实”，这个“因为显现真实”与所立誓的“存在”相违背，因为存在不可能是真实显现，就像补特伽罗一样。有人说，这在这里也是不可能的。因为在那里，只有同品法才被说成是理由，而这根本不是同品法。所谓“应当显示”是在观察似是而非的理由的时候。已经讲完了包含似同品的部分。现在应当讲作为表达的、为他所用的比量，也就是理由。如果有人问：那么它的定义不是已经讲过了吗？回答是：讲过是没错。即使如此，也是为了显示详细的分类，而采用理由的定义。在那里，指的是那个理由。之所以先详细地显示同品的分类，而不是紧接着要讲的所要成立的，是因为说了原因：因为所要成立的法是理由等等。之所以说“大多数”这个词，是为了知道不成立的、没有同品法也是似是而非的理由。这是偈颂的意义：因为大多数的理由和似是而非的理由都是同品法，所以应当在理由和不相违背之前，先详细地显示同品法。应当这样说：因为同品法是许多事物的共同方式，所以同品法的分类应当先于理由等。
English
Saying "it is" without establishing it, that's all. To establish the debate, everything that is said is because of impermanence. There, and so on. Among them, what contradicts the established tenet is the Vaisheshika's "sound is impermanent because it is apprehended by the senses," which contradicts what they acknowledge as permanent dharmas, because things and qualities, etc., that are apprehended by the senses are considered permanent dharmas, and if impermanence arises, it contradicts the established tenet. What contradicts the meaning of the vow is the Samkhya's "the effect exists in the cause because it manifests truly," this "because it manifests truly" contradicts the vowed "existence," because existence cannot be a true manifestation, just like a person. Someone says that this is also impossible here. Because there, only the property of the similar class is said to be the reason, and this is not at all the property of the similar class. The so-called "should be shown" is at the time of examining fallacious reasons. The part including the seeming similar class has been explained. Now, the reason that is the expression, the inference for others, should be explained. If someone asks: Then hasn't its definition already been explained? The answer is: It is true that it has been explained. Even so, it is to show the detailed classification that the definition of reason is adopted. There, it refers to that reason. The reason why the classification of the similar class is shown in detail first, rather than what is to be established, which is to be explained immediately, is because the reason is given: Because the dharma to be established is the reason, etc. The reason why the word "most" is said is to know that the unestablished, without the property of the similar class, is also a fallacious reason. This is the meaning of the verse: Because most of the reasons and fallacious reasons are the property of the similar class, the property of the similar class should be shown in detail before the reason and non-contradiction. It should be said like this: Because the property of the similar class is the common way of many things, the classification of the property of the similar class should precede the reason, etc.
Chinese
应当如此。那是为了显示支分之法，为了容易理解，而宣说了论式场合的略义。如同有无顺品等等。此处是指这个偈颂。因为解释了九种支分之法。因为这是众多事物的共同方式，所以应当首先考察共同之处。一旦确定了这一点，为了详细说明论式等的定义，以及为了容易理解，所以之后必定会说明这一点。此处只是法性的法，不是集合的，也不是法的。因此，说“所立之法”是唯独将法性确定为支分，因为所立之词就是支分的名相。有人思考后说，这是种姓等等，暂时如何等等。因为等等，凡是不想成立的，就不是支分，如同论式。法性也是如此，说了没有遍及。因为已经成立，所以这样可以消除对未成立的怀疑。凡是已经成立的，就不是想要成立的，如同论式。法性也是如此，这与遍及相违。如果说因此它的法不适合作为支分法来显示，那么，没有这个过失等等。并非一定只用实义词来表达，那么用什么呢？也用近取假名。对此，如果说支分不是真实的，那就是成立已成。如果法性是支分的一部分，因此也不适合用近取假名来显示，如果这样来论证，那么就不确定了，因为对集合的一部分用集合的近取假名来表示，如同对布匹的一部分用布匹来表示一样。提到法是顺便提及的，为了完全避免所立跟随论式，这里也是为了完全避免这个争论。
English
It should be so. That is, in order to show the division of the aspects, and for the sake of easy understanding, the condensed meaning of the context of reasoning is explained. Such as the presence or absence of the concordant side, etc. Here, it refers to this verse. Because the nine aspects of the aspects are explained. Because this is the common way of many things, therefore, the commonality should be examined first. Once this is determined, in order to explain the definitions of reasoning and so on in detail, and for the sake of easy understanding, it will definitely be explained later. Here, it only becomes the dharma of the subject of dharma, it is not of the aggregate, nor is it of the dharma. Therefore, saying "what is to be established is dharma" is to assert that only the subject of dharma is the aspect, because the term "what is to be established" is the name of the aspect itself. Someone thought and said, this is caste, etc., how for a while, etc. Because of etc., whatever is not intended to be established is not an aspect, like reasoning. The subject of dharma is also the same, it is said that there is no pervasion. Because it is already established, this eliminates the doubt of not being established. Whatever is already established is not what is intended to be established, like reasoning. The subject of dharma is also the same, which contradicts the pervasion. If it is said that therefore its dharma is not suitable to be shown as the dharma of the aspect, then, there is no such fault, etc. It is not necessarily the case that only real words are used to express, then what is used? Also by approximations. On this, if it is said that the aspect is not real, then it is establishing what is already established. If the subject of dharma is one part of the aspect, therefore it is also not suitable to be shown by approximation, if it is to be argued in this way, then it is uncertain, because one part of the aggregate is expressed by the approximation of the aggregate, just as one part of the cloth is expressed as cloth. Mentioning dharma is incidental, in order to completely avoid what is to be established following the reasoning, here also is to completely avoid this dispute.
Tibetan
དངོས་མིན་ན་ཡང་ཞེས་པ་སྟེ་འདིར་ནི་ཤེས་པར་འདོད་ཅིང་ཕྱིས་ཀྱི་དུས་སུ་གྲུབ་པ་ བརྟེན་པའི་ཆོས་ཀྱིས་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་བྱས་པའི་ཆོས་ཅན་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བའོ་ཞེས་པས་ཚོགས་པ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱར་བརྗོད་པར་བྱའོ། །རྣམ་པ་དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་ཆོས་ཅན་དེ་ཡང་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་དངོས་པོ་ཁོ་ན་སྟེ། དེ་ལ་བྱས་པ་ཉིད་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ཆོས་མི་སྲིད་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་པས་འདི་ནི་བརྩད་པར་བྱ་བ་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཁོ་ནའོ། །ཁྱོད་ཀྱིས་ཡོངས་སུ་བརྟགས་པ་ནི་ཚོགས་པ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བར་ཁས་བླངས་ནས་ནི་ཁོ་བོས་འདི་ལན་དུ་བརྗོད་པར་བྱའོ་ཞེས་པ་འདི་ཡང་གི་སྒྲས་གསལ་བར་བྱེད་དོ། །འདི་སྐད་བཤད་པར་གྱུར་ཏོ། །གལ་ཏེ་ཡང་དངོས་མ་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་སྐྱོན་མེད་ན་དངོས་ཉིད་ལ་ལྟ་ཅི་ཞིག་ཅེས་པའོ། །ཡང་དངོས་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཉིད་ལ་སྐྱོན་མེད་པ་ཡིན་པ་གང་ལས་དེ་ལ་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ཉིད་དུ་ཉེ་བར་གདགས་པར་བྱ་བ་ཅི་ལྟར་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན། ཉེ་བར་འདོགས་པའི་རྒྱུ་གསུངས་པ། །ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཕྱིར་ཞེས་པ་སྟེ། དེ་འདིས་ནི། གང་ཞིག་གང་ཕྱོགས། གཅིག་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ནི་དེས་ཐ་སྙད་བསྟན་པར་འོས་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན་སྣམ་བུའི་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ནི་སྣམ་བུར་ཐ་སྙད་བསྟན་པ་བཞིན། ཆོས་ཅན་ཡང་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་པ་རང་བཞིན་གསུངས་སོ། །དགོས་པ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཉེ་བར་གདགས་པར་མི་བྱའོ་ཞེ་ན། མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེའི་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཡིན་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་ཉེ་བར་གདགས་སུ་རུང་བའི་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་ཆོས་རྟོགས་པའི་དོན་ཅན་ཡིན་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། ཉེ་བར་བཏགས་བ་ནིའོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཡང་མིག་གིས་གཟུང་བྱ་ཉིད་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡང་ཡོངས་སུ་སྦངས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །འབའ་ཞིག་པ་ནི་ཉེ་བར་བཏགས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་པ་འདིར་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་བ་ཞེས་སྦྲེལ་བར་བྱའོ། །འདིར་ཡང་ཞེས་པ་གཞན་གྱི་དོན་གྱི་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པར་རོ། །གཉིས་ལ་གྲུབ་པས་ཞེས་པ་རྒོལ་བ་དང་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་བ་དག་ལ་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་ཉིད་དུ་ངེས་པར་གྱུར་བ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེས་ཐ་སྙད་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། འདི་ཤེས་པར་བྱེད་པའི་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཀྱི་དབང་དུ་བྱས་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་བཤད་ཟིན་ཏེ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་དོན་གྱིས་གོ་བས། གཉིས་ལ་བཟློག་པ་ན་སྟེ། མ་ངེས་པ་ན་ཞེས་པའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །གཅིག་ལ་ཡང་བཟློག་པ་ན་དང་གཉིས་ལའང་གཅིག་ལ་ཐེ་ཚོམ་ཟ་ན་དང༌། གཞི་མ་གྲུབ་ནའང་འདོད་མ་ཡིན། ། གཏན་ཚིགས་སུ་ཞེས་པའོ། །དེས་ན་དེ་བསལ་བའི་དོན་དུ་རྩོལ་མ་ཐག་པ་གཞག་པར་བྱའོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རྣམ་པ་འདི་ལྟ་བུ་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་
Chinese
“纵非实有”等，此处意欲了知，后时成立，以所依之法差别之法性，是所应成立者，如是应说集合为所立。如是之法性，亦唯是所应成立之事物。若谓于彼不可能有作者等法，则此唯是不可争辩者。汝既已遍计执集合为所应成立，故我应以此答之，此亦由“亦”字而明之。如是说之。设若纵非实有亦无过失，何须观待实有耶？又，若谓纵非实有亦无过失，云何应于彼安立为所应成立耶？宣说安立之因，谓“以一分故”。此谓，凡是某之分，一分即应以彼施设名言，如以布之一分施设为布。法性亦是分之一分，如是宣说自性。若谓以无必要故不应安立，非也。以彼是一分之故，是可安立之法性之法，以是通达义之故，是安立也。若如是，则眼所取等亦将遍舍，唯是安立耶？此处应连结“是所应成立”。此处之“亦”字，是随顺他义之比量。所谓“于二者成立”，是说敌者与反敌者，凡是决定为随顺品之法性者，即是名言。何以故？谓已说以是了知此之理路所作故。是故以义理可知，于二者相违时，即是不决定之异名。于一者相违时，及于二者于一者犹豫时，若基地不成立亦不应许。 是为理路。故为遣除彼，应立立即勤作。设若如是之相状非为成立者
English
"Even if not real," etc., here it is intended to know, established in later times, the dharma characterized by the dependent dharma, is what should be established, thus it should be said that the collection is what is to be established. Such a dharma-nature is also only the object to be established. If it is said that it is impossible for there to be a maker, etc., then this is only what cannot be argued. Since you have already completely conceived of the collection as what should be established, I should answer this, which is also clarified by the word "also." It is said thus. If even if it is not real, there is no fault, why should one look at what is real? Also, if it is said that even if it is not real, there is no fault, how should it be established as what should be established? The cause of establishment is declared, saying, "Because of one part." This means that whatever is a part of something, one part should be designated by that, just as one part of cloth is designated as cloth. Dharma-nature is also one part of a part, thus declaring the nature. If it is said that it should not be established because there is no need, it is not so. Because it is one part, it is the dharma of the dharma-nature that can be established, because it is the meaning of understanding, it is establishment. If so, then what is taken by the eye, etc., will also be completely abandoned, is it only establishment? Here, "what should be established" should be connected. The word "also" here is a comparison following the meaning of others. What is called "established in two" means that the opponent and the counter-opponent, whatever is determined to be the dharma-nature of the conforming class, is the name. Why? It is said that it has already been said that it is done by the reason for knowing this. Therefore, it can be known by meaning, when there is contradiction in two, it is a different name for uncertainty. When there is contradiction in one, and when there is doubt in one of the two, if the base is not established, it should not be accepted. It is the reason. Therefore, in order to eliminate it, immediate effort should be established. If such a state is not for the establisher