Chinese
因为我们不希望生是可被分析的，所以没有落入真实存在的过失。如果那些不能被理智分析，那么被理智驳倒的意义又怎么能成立呢？这是把不能被理智分析和被理智损害两者混为一谈。很多人这样说：虽然那个被分析的理智所阻碍，但是生等是存在的。说这种话是胡说八道，所以我们不希望这样。理智可分析与不可分析的意义是，用分析那个实性的理智是否能找到。 还有，《四百论》的注释中说：我们的分别观察是致力于寻找自性的缘故。如是说，就是在色等上寻找生灭等的自性是否存在。这样的话，就是在色等上寻找以自己的体性成立的生灭是否存在，而不是理智仅仅寻找生灭。因此，那个理智被称为分析那个实性，因为是在那个实性中分析生灭等是否成立。像那样的理智分析或寻找时，对于生等一点也没有找到，这叫做不可分析，理智没有找到仅仅是驳倒，如果存在，理智必须成立，如果它没有成立，那就是驳倒。色等的生灭等也是由名言识成立的，即使那些存在，理智识也不能成立，因为它没有找到，那些怎么能被驳倒呢？例如，眼识没有找到声音，但它并没有驳倒声音。因此，如果生灭等以自己的体性成立或者仅仅在那上面成立，那么理智必须找到它，因为理智如实地分析色等上以自己的体性成立的生灭是否存在。像那样，因为它没有找到生等，所以阻碍了以自己的体性成立或者仅仅在那上面成立的生灭等，因为如果以自己的体性成立，它必须找到， 因为它没有找到。例如，如果在东方有瓶子，那么一定能找到的寻找者在东方寻找瓶子的时候，如果没有找到，那么他就驳倒了东方有瓶子，仅仅是有瓶子又怎么能
English
Because we do not wish for birth to be analyzable, there is no fault of falling into truly existing. If those cannot be analyzed by reason, then how can the meaning of being refuted by reason be established? This is confusing the two, being unable to be analyzed by reason and being harmed by reason. Many people say this: although that is obstructed by the reason that analyzes, birth and so on exist. Saying such things is nonsense, so we do not wish for that. The meaning of reason being analyzable or unanalyzable is whether the reason that analyzes that very nature can find it or not. Also, in the commentary on the Four Hundred, it says: Our discriminating observation is solely engaged in seeking self-nature. As it is said, it is seeking whether the self-nature of arising and ceasing and so on exists on form and so on. In that case, it is seeking whether arising and ceasing established by its own entity exists on form and so on, not that reason merely seeks arising and ceasing. Therefore, that reason is called analyzing that very nature, because it is analyzing whether arising and ceasing and so on are established in that very nature. When such a reason analyzes or seeks, it does not find even a little of birth and so on, this is called unanalyzable, and the reason not finding it is merely refuting it. If it exists, the reason must establish it, and if it does not establish it, then it is refuted. The arising and ceasing of form and so on are also established by conceptual consciousness, and even if those exist, rational consciousness cannot establish them, because it has not found them, how can those be refuted? For example, eye consciousness does not find sound, but it does not refute sound. Therefore, if arising and ceasing and so on are established by their own entity or are established only on that, then reason must find it, because reason truly analyzes whether arising and ceasing established by its own entity exists on form and so on. Like that, because it has not found birth and so on, it obstructs arising and ceasing and so on established by its own entity or established only on that, because if it is established by its own entity, it must find it, because it has not found it. For example, if there is a vase in the east, then when a seeker who is certain to find it seeks a vase in the east, if he does not find it, then he refutes that there is a vase in the east, how can merely having a vase