Chinese
也不是说不出来，就像这样说的，没有联系的声音，没有表达意义的道理。无边无际也是以境劫，因为与近似表达的边的声音的否定和明显相关。这和这个说明了，凡是进入劫境的那些，在这里居住的那些不能说成是自己的结合伴侣的关系，比如去了天界的黑者等等。有些差别也是如此，这与普遍存在相矛盾。或者无边无际就是无边无际，就像方向的边一样，因为完全切断表达的边声音与否定声音相关。结合就是凡是无边无际的那些，不能说是与自己相关的有关系，就像地上的尘土一样，差别也是如此，这正是矛盾之处。没有联系等等，凡是没有说明与差别相关的，那些不是表达者，就像圣者面前的野蛮人的声音一样。种姓的声音也是如此，这是没有发现普遍存在者。为了仅仅理解自己的本质，这是为了使例子更清楚，因为野蛮人的声音只是理解声音的自己的本质，而不是意义。另外，这是理由等等。如果无论如何是错误的，那么就说，如何等等，即使没有物质，因为看到功德，即使没有它，对于物质和业等等，在一切中都会错误地犹豫。不是表达者，凡是对什么产生怀疑的原因，那不是对它的理解，比如可衡量的事物本身，对于常与无常等等的样子，种姓的声音对于差别也是如此，这是说了自性矛盾。怀疑的原因本身和错误的原因，这说明了。凡是对什么产生错误，那就是对它的怀疑的原因，例子就是那个。种姓的声音也是对差别的错误。自性。那么从种姓的声音中，自己的所有差别都
English
It is not that it cannot be expressed, just as it is said, there is no reason for a sound without connection to express meaning. Infinity is also a kalpa by object, because it is obviously related to the negation of the sound of the near expression of the edge. This and this show that those who enter the realm of kalpas cannot be said to be related to their own conjugal partners by those who live here, such as the black ones who have gone to heaven, etc. Some differences are also like this, which contradicts the universality. Or infinity is infinity, just like the edge of a direction, because the edge sound that completely cuts off expression is related to the negative sound. Combination is that those who are infinite cannot be said to be related to themselves, just like the dust on the ground, the differences are also like this, which is the contradiction. Without connection, etc., those who have not explained the relationship with the differences are not expressers, just like the voice of barbarians in front of the noble ones. The sound of caste is also like this, which is said to be the absence of a universal being. In order to understand only one's own essence, this is to make the example clearer, because the sound of barbarians only understands the essence of the sound itself, not the meaning. In addition, this is the reason, etc. If it is wrong anyway, then say, how, etc., even if there is no substance, because of seeing merit, even if there is not it, for substance and karma, etc., there will be hesitation in error in everything. Not an expression, whatever is the cause of doubt about something, that is not an understanding of it, such as the measurable thing itself, for the appearance of permanence and impermanence, etc., the sound of caste is also like this for the differences, which is said to be a contradiction of nature. The cause of doubt itself and the cause of error, this explains. Whatever causes error to something, that is the cause of doubt to it, the example is that. The sound of caste is also an error to the difference. Nature. Then from the sound of caste, all the differences of one's own
Chinese
难道不是吗？并非对一切都产生怀疑，当自身的一切差别都不存在时，任何时候，种类的声音在某些情况下也不会指向其他意义，因此，为什么会混淆呢？没有这个过失。种类的声音并非通过触及差别和无差别的自性来理解，凡是声音所要表达的，也不是所有差别的自性之总和，因为如果完全舍弃差别的自性，那它们就只会变成种类本身了。差别的自性也不是普遍存在的，因为差别的自性本身就是相互排斥的，所以没有这种想法。凡是思考，都是在没有先前过失的情况下，对其他方面进行陈述。之所以说容易关联且不会混淆，是因为容易是因为是同一种类，即使存在许多对境，也因为各自以一切自性圆满。也因为接近，所以通过所依的接近而关联。关联与自己的所依相符，聚集，也唯有不混淆。差别是多样的，因此对于相互不存在的事物，也会产生存在的错觉，但对于种类的种类或结合则不然，因为它们是无二无别的，即使没有它们，声音也不会运用。所谓“不合道理”，意思就是与道理没有关联。那么，这里所说的道理是什么呢？就是称为“圣教”的量。如何与它没有关联呢？因为听到了各别的意义和无别的意义。“凡是意义各别”是指，具有各别意义的差别之声音。与它们听到无别，就是指共同的基础，即听到无别，也就是在同一个基础上听到。如果从可信者那里听到无别，就不会变成见到“存在之物”等等，那也是见到的，意思是说，在论典中见到与种类相关联的陈述，就会因为共同的基础而受到损害。或者说，凡是以各别意义的事物作为共同基础的，就不是在陈述种类和结合，例如说：
English
Isn't it? It is not that doubt arises about everything, and when all the distinctions of oneself do not exist, at any time, the sound of the genus does not nearly point to another meaning in some cases. Therefore, why is there confusion? There is no fault in this. The sound of the genus is not to be understood by touching the nature of distinction and non-distinction. Whatever is to be expressed by sound is not the totality of the nature of all distinctions, because if the nature of distinction is completely abandoned, then they will only become the genus itself. The nature of distinction is not universally present either, because the nature of distinction itself is mutually exclusive, so there is no such thought. Whatever is thought is a statement of other aspects without previous faults. The reason why it is said to be easy to relate and not confusing is because it is easy because it is of the same kind, and even if there are many objects, it is because each is complete with all self-natures. Also because of proximity, it is related by the proximity of the support. The relation is in accordance with its own support, gathering, and only without confusion. The distinctions are diverse, so for things that do not exist with each other, there will also be the illusion of existence, but not for the genus of genus or combination, because they are non-dual and non-different, and even without them, the sound will not be used. The so-called "unreasonable" means that it is not related to reason. So, what is the reason here? It is the valid means called "Agama". How is it not related to it? Because the separate meaning and the non-separate meaning are heard. "Whatever meanings are separate" refers to the sounds of distinctions that have separate meanings. Hearing non-different from them refers to the common basis, that is, hearing non-different, that is, hearing on the same basis. If one hears non-different from the trustworthy ones, it will not become seeing "existing things" and so on, that is also seen, meaning that seeing statements related to the genus in the treatise will be harmed by the common basis. Or, whatever uses things with separate meanings as a common basis is not stating the genus and combination, for example:
Tibetan
། འདི་བུམ་བའོ་འདི་སྒྲའོ་ཞེས་པ་བཞིན། ཡོད་པའི་སྒྲའི་ཡང་ཐ་དད་པའི་དོན་ཅན་རྣམས་དང་གཞི་མཐུན་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་པ་ཁྱབ་བྱེད་དང་འགལ་བ་གསུངས་སོ། །ཡང་ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་བསྟན་བ་འདི་ལ་གཞི་མཐུན་པ་ཉིད་དུ་མི་འགྱུར་ཞེ་ན་གསུངས་པ། ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་ཅེས་པ་ལ་སོགས་པའོ། །གང་གི་ཕྱིར་རྫས་དང་ཡོན་ཏན་དང་ལས་རྣམས་ལ་དོན་གཞན་པ་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་བཤད་ལ། འབྲེལ་བ་ཡང་རྫས་ལ་སོགས་པ་དགག་པ་སྟེ། དངོས་པོ་ལ་ནི་བཤད་པའོ་ཞེས་པའོ། །འོ་ན་ཅི་ཞེ་ན། རྫས་ཀྱིའམ་ཡོན་ཏན་གྱིའོ་ཞེས་པ། འབྲེལ་བའི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་དྲུག་པས་འདིར་འབྱུང་བར་བྱའོ་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ཏོ། །འོ་ན་རྫས་ལ་སོགས་པའི་སྒྲ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་རིགས་ཙམ་པོ་རྫས་ཉིད་ལས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱའོ་ཞེས་པས། དེ་ལས་གང་ལ་དྲུག་པའི་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བར་རིགས་ནི་རིགས་གཞན་དང་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅི་ཞིག་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན། སྐྱོན་འདི་མེད་དེ། རྫས་ཉིད་དང་ལྡན་པ་ནི་རྫས་སུ་འདིར་ལྡན་པའི་དོན་ཅན་གྱི་རྐྱེན་དབྱི་བར་བྱས་ནས་བསྟན་ཏེ། གཞི་མི་མཐུན་པ་ཉིད་རབ་ཏུ་བསྟན་པའི་དོན་དུའོ། །གལ་ཏེ་འདི་ལྟར་བྱས་ན་ཡོད་པའི་སྒྲ་ལ་ཡང་ལྡན་པའི་དོན་ཅན་ དབྱི་བར་བྱས་པ་ལས་གཞི་མཐུན་པ་ཉིད་དུ་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། འོ་ན་གང་གི་ཚེ་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་ཙམ་བརྗོད་པར་འདོད་པ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་ལྡན་པའི་དོན་ཅན་མི་འཐད་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་འཐོབ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེའི་ཚེ་ཡོད་པ་ནི་རྫས་ཀྱིས་ཞེས་འདོད་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འོ་ན་རྐྱེན་ཐམས་ཅད་བདག་ཉིད་རང་ཉིད་ཡང་དག་པར་ཞུགས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར། འབྲེལ་པའི་སྒྲས་ཀྱང་རེ་ཞིག་འབྲེལ་བ་ཡོད་པ་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ན། རིགས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ཡིས་ག་ལས་ཡིན། །དེ་ཅི་ལྟར་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བ་དང་བཅས་པ་ཉིད་དུ་དོགས་པ་ཡིན་ཞེ་ན་གསུངས་པ། འབྲེལ་པའང་འདིར་ཞེས་པ་རང་གི་ཆོས་ཀྱིས་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་འབྲེལ་བ་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་བར་བཤད་པ་ནི་མ་ཡིན་པ་ཁོ་ན་སྟེ། འོ་ན་ཅི་ཞེ་ན། འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གྱི་ཆོས་ཀྱིས་སོ། །ཡང་ཅི་ལྟར་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གྱི་ཆོས་ཀྱིས་བཤད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ཞེན་གསུངས་པ། དེ་ལྟར་ཞེས་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་འདིར་སྒྲའི་དོན་འགའ་ཞིག་སྒྲ་འགའ་ཞིག་གིས་བརྗོད་བར་བྱ་བཞིན་པ་ནི་འབྲེལ་པ་ཅན་གཞན་ལ་དོགས་པ་ཉེ་བར་སྐྱེ་བའི་རྒྱུ་སྟེ། དེ་ལྟར་ནི་སྡུད་པ་ཡིན་ཞིང་སྡུད་པའི་སྒྲ་བརྗོད་པ་ན། ཕ་རོལ་དོགས་པ་ཉེ་བར་སྐྱེ་བའི་རྒྱུར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་ཁོ་ན་རྒོལ་བས་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པ་ནི་ཅིའི་ཞེས་དོགས་བ་སྐྱེད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་པས་སོ། །དངོས་པོ་ཡང་དངོས་པོ
Chinese
如同“这是瓶子，这是声音”一样，存在的词语也与具有不同含义的事物具有相同的基质，这与普遍性相矛盾。又问，为什么这个教义不会变成具有相同的基质呢？回答说，这是因为“存在本身”等等。因为对于物质、性质和作用，都说存在着不同的含义，并且关系也否定了物质等等，而是对事物进行了解释。那么是什么呢？“物质的”或“性质的”，意思是说，关系的第六个特征应该在这里出现。那么，即使是物质等词语，也应该仅仅从物质本身来表达种类。那么，从那之中，哪一个应该用第六种表达方式来表达呢？种类与其他种类有什么关系呢？这个错误是不存在的，因为与物质本身相关联的事物，在这里被解释为物质，去除了具有相关含义的因素，是为了充分展示基质的不一致性。如果这样做，那么对于“存在”这个词语，也去除了具有相关含义的因素，就会变成具有相同的基质了吗？那么，当想要仅仅表达存在本身时，因为不适合具有相关含义的因素，那时是无法获得的。那时也不想要说“存在是物质的”。那么，因为所有条件都完全融入了自身，所以关系的词语暂时也不应该表达存在的关系，那么种类的词语又该如何呢？如果怀疑它应该如何表达，回答说，关系也在这里，因为要用自己的属性来表达，所以说要表达关系并不是唯一的，那么是什么呢？是用具有关系的属性。又问，如何用具有关系的属性来解释呢？回答说，像这样，在这里，某些词语的含义被某些词语表达，这是产生对其他相关事物怀疑的近因，像这样是收集，当表达收集的词语时，就会成为使对方产生怀疑的近因，因此，辩论者会立即提出“为什么”这样的疑问。事物也是事物。
English
Just as in "This is a pot, this is a sound," the word 'existent' also shares the same basis with things that have different meanings, which contradicts universality. Again, why doesn't this teaching become having the same basis? It is said that it is because of "existence itself" and so on. Because for substance, quality, and action, it is said that there are different meanings of existence, and the relation also negates substance and so on, but it is explained for things. Then what is it? "Of substance" or "of quality," meaning that the sixth characteristic of relation should appear here. Then, even the words 'substance' and so on should only express the genus from the substance itself. Then, from that, which one should be expressed with the sixth expression? What relation does the genus have with other genera? This fault does not exist, because what is associated with substance itself is explained here as substance, removing the factor with associated meaning, in order to fully show the dissimilarity of the basis. If it is done this way, then for the word 'existent,' also removing the factor with associated meaning, will it become having the same basis? Then, when one wants to express only existence itself, because it is not suitable for the factor with associated meaning, it is not obtainable at that time. At that time, one does not want to say "existence is of substance." Then, because all conditions are perfectly integrated into oneself, the word of relation should also not express the existing relation for a while, then how about the word of genus? If there is doubt about how it should be expressed, it is said that relation is also here, because it is to be expressed by one's own attribute, so it is said that expressing relation is not the only thing, then what is it? It is by the attribute of having relation. Again, how is it to be explained by the attribute of having relation? It is said that, like this, here, the meaning of some words is expressed by some words, which is the proximate cause of generating doubt about other related things, like this is collecting, and when the word of collecting is expressed, it becomes the proximate cause of generating doubt in the other party, therefore, the debater immediately raises the question of "why." Things are also things.