Chinese
就像那样。正如《释论》中所说，在阻断紧随因的章节中，幼苗的比喻阻断了紧随因。佛护也同样认可，因此，这也是认为色法也具有紧随因的宗义。如果存在什么，什么就会产生，这就是它的主因。正如《释论》中所说，先前产生的、同时产生的和后来产生的等等，也都包含在这些之中。自释中也同样说到除了第一个之外，正如《智慧之灯》中所说：“其他部派所考察的因，先前产生的、存在的和不存在的”等等，虽然翻译后意义相同，但那样更好。它的意思是，在注释中，住部派所安立的名称，先前产生的因，是指诸根的现前所生的境缘。存在的因，是指俱有因和主因。不存在的因，是指紧随因。像这样仅仅是名称不相同，如果考察其体性，则都包含在这四种因之中。自在天等不是因，因此第五种因是不存在的。要如此确定地理解，如《俱舍论》中所说：“四者生心及心所，三者等持二品类，余者二者生，自在等非理等故。”就像这样认为。第二，分为两部分：对普遍承认他生的观点进行驳斥，以及对唯识宗的观点进行具体驳斥。第一部分分为五个方面：直接驳斥他生，消除驳斥所带来的世间过失，阐述如此驳斥的功德，阐述在任何情况下都不存在自性生，阐述在两种真理中都驳斥了自性生的功德。第一部分分为三个方面：普遍驳斥他生，具体驳斥他生，通过对果的四句进行分析来驳斥他生。第一部分分为两个方面：通过过于荒谬来驳斥，驳斥对过失的辩解。第一部分分为两个方面：直接阐述过于荒谬，以及考察这些的边际。第一部分是：这种他生是无法成立的，因为它与理证和圣言相违背。后面是出自《稻秆经》：名色之苗
English
Just like that. As it is said in the Commentary, in the section on blocking the immediately preceding cause, the analogy of a sprout blocks the immediately preceding cause. Buddhapālita also agrees with this, so this is the tenet that form also has an immediately preceding cause. If something exists, something arises, this is its lord cause. As the Commentary says, previously arisen, simultaneously arisen, and subsequently arisen, etc., are also included within these. The self-commentary also says the same, except for the first, as it is said in the Lamp of Wisdom: "The causes examined by other schools, previously arisen, existent, and nonexistent," etc., although the meaning is the same after translation, it is better that way. Its meaning is that in the commentary, the names established by the Sthavira school, the previously arisen cause, refers to the object-condition that arises in the presence of the senses. The existent cause refers to the co-existent cause and the lord cause. The nonexistent cause refers to the immediately preceding cause. Such differences in names only, if examined in terms of their characteristics, are all included in these four causes. Īśvara and others are not causes, so the fifth cause is nonexistent. It should be understood with certainty that, as it is said in the Treasury of Knowledge: "Four produce mind and mental factors, three produce the two kinds of equipoise, others are produced by two, Īśvara etc. are not, because of order etc." It is considered in this way. The second is divided into two parts: refuting the view that others arise in general, and specifically refuting the view of the Mind-Only school. The first part is divided into five aspects: directly refuting other-arising, eliminating the worldly faults of refuting, explaining the merits of such refutation, explaining that there is no self-nature arising in any case, and explaining the merits of refuting self-nature arising in both truths. The first part is divided into three aspects: generally refuting other-arising, specifically refuting other-arising, and refuting other-arising by analyzing the four possibilities of the result. The first part is divided into two aspects: refuting through extreme absurdity, and refuting the response to faults. The first part is divided into two aspects: directly explaining extreme absurdity, and examining the limits of these. The first part is: this other-arising cannot be established, because it contradicts reasoning and scripture. The latter is from the Rice Seedling Sutra: The sprout of name and form.