Chinese
不会从痛苦和不适以及争斗中完全解脱，也不会从死亡的痛苦中完全解脱。这样，有和没有的两种边见都被否定了。这部经也是所有部派所诵读的，因此，根据这部经和如是所说的道理，我们不承认自性等四者是自性存在的。世尊有何殊胜之处呢？就是如实了知事物和非事物的自性。第二点是：此外，如果火等是自性存在的，那么，自性存在的自性就不会再通过改变而变成不存在了。因为自性存在的事物发生改变是永远不合理的，就像天空的不遮蔽永远不会改变一样。因为也是变异的法，所以不像水的温度一样不是自性。如果说因为自性存在的事物没有他变，而且也观察到他变，所以事物不是自性存在的，那么，即使不是自性存在，他变又会是谁的呢？因此，对于不是自性存在的事物来说，他变是不合理的，但又见到了他变，所以事物是自性存在的。如果这样说，即使自性是以自己的体性而存在的，又怎么能改变呢？不能改变。佛护论中，前两句否定了由于没有自性的他变，所以存在他变的事物；后两句否定了自性存在的事物不应有他变，所以事物是自性存在的，这四句都是自宗的观点。这里，注释中说，因为见到他变，所以不是自性存在，这也是就他人所承认的见到他变而说的。我们从来没有承认过任何事物有他变。这样说是因为，之前上面说，火等自性存在的事物，你们也观察到它们在改变。这是指因为见到自性改变，所以说不是自性存在，而不是仅仅指他变。
English
It will not be completely liberated from suffering and discomfort and strife, nor will it be completely liberated from the suffering of the agony of death. Thus, both extremes of existence and non-existence are negated. This sutra is also recited by all schools, therefore, according to this sutra and the reason as stated, we do not accept that the four, such as svabhāva, are inherently existent. What is the special excellence of the Blessed One? It is that he knows the svabhāva of things and non-things without any perversion. The second point is: Furthermore, if fire and so on are inherently existent, then the svabhāva of inherent existence will not become non-existent again through change. Because it is never reasonable for something that is inherently existent to change, just as the unobscuredness of the sky never changes. Because it is also of the nature of change, it is not svabhāva like the heat of water. If it is said that because there is no other change for what is inherently existent, and also because other change is observed, therefore things are not inherently existent, then even if it is not inherently existent, whose will the other change be? Therefore, it is unreasonable for other change to occur to what is not inherently existent, but other change is also seen, therefore things are inherently existent. If it is said like this, even if svabhāva exists by its own nature, how can it change? It cannot change. In the Buddhapālita, the first two lines negate the existence of a thing of other change because there is no other change of svabhāva; the latter two lines negate that a thing is inherently existent because there should be no other change for what is inherently existent, so all four lines are the view of our own school. Here, the commentary says that because other change is seen, therefore it is not inherently existent, which is also said in terms of seeing other change that is accepted by others. We have never accepted that anything has other change. This is because, earlier above, it was said that you also observed that fire and so on, which are inherently existent, are changing. This refers to saying that because svabhāva is seen to change, therefore it is not inherently existent, and not just referring to other change.