Chinese
因为以自性，极微尘等所缘之对境，并非是根识在世俗中存在所缘之对境。如果这样有什么过失呢？回答说：如果这样等等。以“非也”等等说了唯有此才是合理的。如果极微尘等各自成为能知，如果这样，极微尘一一将成为能诠说，而且它们各自成为能知的因，而且它们各自成为能诠说，从那之中如果获得对境之识现量，那样也不是。因此，谁能诠说它呢，这个无法成立。如果认为从聚合显现本身能诠说它，极微尘等也只是在聚合之时，互相帮助成为能知的因等。因此，谁能诠说它，唯有从那之中才能免除过失，因此，青色等等的识现量才能成立，这样说了。“各自”等等，即使在聚合之时，也唯有各自才是因之本体，集合并非如此，是这个意思。因此，谁能诠说它，这个无法成立，这仅仅是成为太过。所显现的不是它，所说的是集合的显现。为什么不会如此呢？回答说：因为五者积聚而缘。意思是说，因为积聚显现，所以说是地。通过造作，以能作的作法而显现，是以所缘之语来表达的。从何处而言，那是胜义谛呢？是从极微尘而言。没有对它进行诠说。因为那不是显现，因此那是不了知的缘故。远离意义之理等等，一切的识，都是眼识、耳识等等，能见到显示对境的语词。远离对境之理，就不能显示那个语词。那么，智慧之识，不是也能见到在没有对境的情况下显示语词吗？不是的。因为没有完全了解密意的缘故。再说，这其中的密意是什么呢？与对境相关联，却不能说远离意义之理，这是密意。对此，
English
Because by its own nature, the objects of perception such as atoms are not the objects of perception for sense consciousness existing in conventional truth. If so, what is the fault? It is said, "If so," etc. By "not," etc., it is said that only this is reasonable. If atoms, etc., each become knowable, then each atom will become expressible, and moreover, they each become the cause of knowing, and they each become expressible. From that, if the direct perception of the object of perception is obtained, that is also not so. Therefore, who can express it, this cannot be established. If it is thought that it can be expressed from the appearance of the aggregate itself, then atoms, etc., are only at the time of aggregation, helping each other to become the cause of knowing, etc. Therefore, who can express it, only from that can faults be avoided, therefore, the direct perception of blue, etc., can be established, so it is said. "Each," etc., even at the time of aggregation, only each is the substance of the cause, the collection is not so, that is the meaning. Therefore, who can express it, this cannot be established, this is merely becoming too much. What appears is not it, what is said is the appearance of the collection. Why will it not be so? It is said, "Because the five are accumulated and perceived." It means that because it appears accumulated, it is said to be earth. Through creation, appearing with the act of creation, it is expressed by the word of the object of perception. From where is that the ultimate truth? It is from atoms. There is no expression for it. Because that is not an appearance, therefore it is because it is not understood. Separated from the nature of meaning, etc., all consciousness is eye consciousness, ear consciousness, etc., one can see the words that show the object. Separated from the nature of the object, one cannot show that word. Then, the consciousness of wisdom, is it not also possible to see the expression of words without an object? No. Because the intention is not fully understood. Again, what is the intention in this? Being related to the object, but not being able to say that it is separated from the nature of meaning, this is the intention. To this,
Chinese
那麼，用什麼樣的道理來理解什麼樣的名言呢？如果說「從它本身產生它」，這是在對境和觀察的時候說的。否則，僅僅是顯示「是知識」。如果這樣說，那麼那時就會以對境的方式來使用這個名言，是這樣說的。這也是指「對境」，用總體的方式來表示色等。總體也僅僅是假立在心中的，並非存在於感官對境中顯現的事物上。如果這樣，怎麼對它進行命名，它又怎麼會變成被命名的對象呢？因此，（佛陀）說，用來命名的東西是不存在的，所以不應該命名。是這樣說的。那麼，對於不可命名的事物，不是將可見的和可分別的事物視為一體，而產生過度的執著嗎？這是那些將事物本身進行命名的人所命名的，你也不可避免地要承認這一點。如果以其他方式來說，因為命名是不合理的。如果可見之物稍微存在於外，那就會變成那樣，但那也是不存在的。因為所緣的定義是不成立的，所以這根本不是回答。那麼，這個道理不是已經說過了嗎？為什麼還要再說一遍呢？這是因為有必要。之前是將微塵的微塵的本性，完全置於極微小的狀態下，來說明這個道理。現在是將那些微塵聚集起來，形成粗大的形態，以此方式來說明。之前是懷疑，僅僅是將作為實體的那些東西的本性，以多種方式來說，因此也承認了它的可見性和可說性，並打算指出其他的過失，所以默認了現量。即使那樣，因為它像水泡一樣不成立，所以根本無法描述，為什麼要為了證明它是現量而說這個呢？還有，它的不可見性又是怎樣的呢？這樣想：是否在所有情況下，以自身形象為特徵的識，都會變成可執取的對象呢？或者在某些情況下。
English
So, with what kind of reasoning do we understand what kind of term? If it is said that "it arises from itself," this is said at the time of the object and examination. Otherwise, it is only showing "it is knowledge." If it is said in this way, then at that time, this will be used as a term in the manner of an object, it is said. This also refers to "object," which is shown by form and so on in a general way. The general is also only nominally existing in the mind, and it is not present in the objects that appear in the senses. If so, how can it be named, and how can it become the object to be named? Therefore, (the Buddha) said that the thing to be named does not exist, so it should not be named. That's what it says. So, isn't it the case that for things that cannot be named, we regard the visible and the distinguishable as one, and generate excessive attachment? This is what those who name things themselves name, and you must inevitably acknowledge this. If it is said in another way, because naming is unreasonable. If the visible exists slightly outside, then it would become like that, but that also does not exist. Because the definition of the object of focus is not established, so this is not an answer at all. So, hasn't this reason already been stated? Why do you need to say it again? This is because it is necessary. Previously, the nature of the atom of the atom was completely placed in a state of extreme minuteness to explain this reason. Now, it is said in this way by gathering those atoms together to form a coarse form. Previously, there was doubt that the nature of those things that exist as entities was spoken of in various ways, so it was also acknowledged that it was visible and speakable, and it was intended to point out other faults, so the direct perception was defaulted. Even so, because it does not hold like a bubble, it is impossible to describe at all, why say this to prove that it is direct perception? Also, how is its invisibility? Think like this: whether in all cases, the consciousness characterized by its own image will become an object to be grasped? Or in some cases.