Chinese
其他的“他”不仅仅是单纯的“他”，而是自性成立的“他”，因此如果承认这一点，就会导致非常严重的过失。仅仅承认“他”则完全没有过失。下面也说到，即使前后刹那不同，也认为是同一个相续，即“凡是自相各别的，它们不应属于一个相续。”如果（事物）是自性成立的各别，那么前后不应属于一个相续，这两者道理相似。也就是说，如果是自性成立的“他”，就能遮止观待的联系。如果变成无联系的异体，那么一个果从自己的因产生，就会导致从一切非因中也产生，并且一个因产生自己的果，就会导致产生一切非自己果的果法，这将会导致非常严重的过失。因此，不能很好地理解这种道理，就像之前所说的那样，是因为没有很好地区分所要遮止的对境的执着，以及仅仅承认的缘起的安立这两者之间的差别。所以在遮止对境的时候，要记住所说的对境的执着。第二，如果承认与之前所说的两种过失相反的意义，《明句论》中说：“与过失相反的意义也与对方有关，我们则不然，因为我们没有承诺。”又说：“说无自性者对说有自性者成立过失时，怎么会变成具有与过失相反的意义的过失呢？”因此，成立过失仅仅具有遮止对方承诺的结果，所以不会变成与过失相反的意义。如果有人想知道这些话应该如何理解，是没有过失的，因为这样说是仅仅在遮止自生的场合。并不是对中观宗所提出的所有过失而言，而是对遮止自生的两种过失而言。其过失仅仅是会导致生无意义和无头无尾，而且再次是生无意义和无头无尾，而与过失相反的意义，即再次是生有意义和有头有尾，只有数论派才这样认为，因为自己没有这样的承诺。
English
Other "other" is not just a simple "other", but an "other" that is established by its own nature. Therefore, if you admit this, it will lead to very serious faults. Simply admitting "other" does not lead to any faults at all. It is also said below that even if the previous and subsequent moments are different, they are considered to be the same continuum, that is, "Those that are individually distinct by their own characteristics, they should not belong to one continuum." If (things) are individually distinct by their own nature, then the previous and subsequent should not belong to one continuum. These two are similar in reasoning. That is to say, if it is an "other" that is established by its own nature, it can prevent the connection of dependence. If it becomes an unrelated other, then if one result arises from its own cause, it will lead to arising from all non-causes, and if one cause produces its own result, it will lead to producing all fruit dharmas that are not its own result, which will lead to very serious faults. Therefore, not being able to understand this kind of reasoning well is, as mentioned before, because the difference between the object of negation that is to be prevented and the establishment of dependent arising that is merely admitted has not been well distinguished. Therefore, when preventing the object of negation, remember the attachment to the object of negation that was said. Second, if one admits the meaning opposite to the two faults mentioned earlier, the Clear Words says, "The meaning opposite to the fault is also related to the other party, but not to us, because we have no commitment." It also says, "When those who speak of no self-nature establish faults for those who speak of self-nature, how can it become a fault with the meaning opposite to the fault?" Therefore, establishing a fault only has the result of preventing the other party's commitment, so it will not become the opposite meaning of the fault. If someone wants to know how these words should be understood, there is no fault, because saying so is only in the case of preventing self-arising. It is not for all the faults raised by the Madhyamikas, but for the two faults of preventing self-arising. Its fault is only that it will lead to birth being meaningless and without beginning or end, and again birth is meaningless and without beginning or end, while the meaning opposite to the fault, that is, again birth is meaningful and with beginning and end, only the Samkhya school thinks so, because they do not have such a commitment.