Chinese
犹如瓶子与不共之法，因为不是有情之故是常法。同样，无常，因为是努力之后才产生的缘故，将虚空作为不共之法。例如，所举例的不共方面，瓶子与不共之法，因为不是有情之故，会变成常法。又为何像是共同的不确定呢？回答说：对于前一方面来说，不是等等。因为如何对于后一方面来说，不是有情本身是共法本身，或者是不共法本身不确定，那样对于前一方面来说，努力之后才产生的本身不是，因此因为没有相同之处的缘故，这像是共同的不确定。相似于不违背的相违。意思是说，像是没有违背的相违。做了像是与不违背的相违相同而进入等等。不是不违背的相违，因为不是有情本身不是不确定的缘故，努力之后才产生的本身不是。因为没有随行之故，意思是说没有周遍。又为何没有随行呢？回答说：两个像是未确定的等等。用比喻的词语来表示具有随行和倒转之相的周遍，否则对于论式没有帮助。对于共法相同或者不共法没有表示随行和倒转。如何对于后一方面是那样，对于前一方面也是，因此如何我们的比喻是有过失的，那样你的也是，这样进行辩论，也要结合到像是比喻的辩论中。随行颠倒之故，也是说像是比喻。将正文连接起来。又如何能够成立随行颠倒本身呢？回答说：因为所要成立的与比喻相混杂的缘故，混杂就是混杂，将所要成立的与共法本身的例子合为一体。如同瓶子那样声音等等。用不共法本身也如同虚空那样。
English
Like a vase and a non-common dharma, because it is not sentient, it is a permanent dharma. Similarly, impermanent, because it arises immediately after effort, making space a non-common dharma. For example, the non-common aspect of the example, the vase and the non-common dharma, because it is not sentient, will become permanent. Furthermore, why does it appear like a common uncertainty? It is said: For the former aspect, it is not, and so on. Because how, for the latter aspect, is it uncertain whether non-sentient itself is a common dharma itself, or a non-common dharma itself, so for the former aspect, arising immediately after effort is not. Therefore, because there is no similarity, this appears like a common uncertainty. Similar to a non-contradictory contradiction. The meaning is that it appears like a non-contradictory contradiction. It is done by entering as if it were the same as a non-contradictory contradiction. It is not a non-contradictory contradiction, because non-sentient itself is not uncertain, arising immediately after effort is not. Because there is no following, it means there is no pervasion. Furthermore, why is there no following? It is said: Both of the appearances of uncertainty, and so on. The words of the example should show the pervasion with the characteristics of following and reversing, otherwise it will not help the argument. It is also not shown that following and reversing are for the common dharma or the non-common dharma. How it is for the latter aspect, so it is for the former aspect. Therefore, how our example is flawed, so is yours, arguing in this way should also be combined into the argument of the example. Because of the reversed following, it is also said to be like an example. Connect the text. Furthermore, how can the reversed following itself be established? It is said: Because the object to be established is mixed with the example, mixing is mixing, uniting the object to be established with the example of the common dharma itself. Like a vase, sound, and so on. With the non-common dharma itself, also like space.
Chinese
说“声不是”，遮止了与虚空相同，因此只确立了与瓶子相同。以“大多数”等显示混合的自性，即亲近结合是混合之义。如果那样亲近结合，那有什么呢？回答说：“于此”等。虽然如此，但在颠倒随行的情况下，就像瓶子一样是声，就像虚空一样声不是，这样就不能进行亲近结合。因此，想要进行亲近结合，就不能进行颠倒随行。那么这怎么可能呢？回答说：“即使那样”等。因为那样做了，所以“同样”是亲近结合，或者“不是同样”只是结合。怎么样呢？就像虚空不是有色且是常，声也是；就像看到瓶子是有色且是无常，声不是。这样，即使做了颠倒随行，也只有“同样”是亲近结合才是合理的。从何处显现为那样，怎么样才能将这个过失安立在前面的方面呢？回答说：“因为相同”等，因为前后两方面相同。就像在后面的方面，颠倒随行成为相同一样，争论颠倒随行也适合争论为相似的例子。为了明确这一点，回答说：“因为仅仅是举例”等。世间人认为，举例的瓶子等有多少，就有多少是例子。因此，如果只有那么多是例子，那么前后两方面在颠倒随行上是相同的。为什么呢？回答说：“因为那样”等。因为在前面的方面，就像瓶子具有两种法，即应成和能成的特征一样，在后面的方面，虚空也具有不是有色和常的特征。
English
Saying "sound is not," it prevents being similar to space, therefore it only establishes being similar to a pot. "Mostly" and so on show the nature of mixing, that is, close combination is the meaning of mixing. If it is so close to combine, what is it from that? It is said, "Here" and so on. Although it changes like that, in the case of reversed following, just as a pot is sound, just as space is not sound, it is impossible to do close combination like that. Therefore, wanting to do close combination, it is not to do reversed following. Then how is that possible? It is said, "Even like that" and so on. Because it is done like that, "the same" is close combination, or "not the same" is only combination. How is it? Just as space is not corporeal and is permanent, so is sound; just as seeing a pot is corporeal and impermanent, so sound is not. Like that, even if reversed following is done, only "the same" is reasonable to be close combination. From where does it appear like that, how can this fault be established on the previous side? It is said, "Because of similarity" and so on, because the previous and later sides are the same. Just as in the later side, reversed following becomes the same, arguing reversed following is also suitable to argue as a similar example. To clarify this only, it is said, "Because only showing an example" and so on. Worldly people think that as much as the example is shown, such as a pot, that much is considered an example. Therefore, if only that much is an example, then the previous and later sides are the same in reversed following. Why? It is said, "Because like that" and so on. Because in the previous side, just as a pot has two qualities, that is, the characteristics of what is to be proven and what proves, in the later side, space also has the characteristics of not being corporeal and being permanent.