Chinese
因为不希望是不具组分的支分，而且这也是要遮破的。 “也”这个语助词，是总摄没有实际说出的聚合之义。安住的方式是，仅仅支分的形状也不合理是车，仅仅是聚合也不合理，为了要了解这个道理。第二点是，另外，如果你们认为仅仅车的形状是车，那么这个形状是各个支分的，还是聚合的呢？如果是前者，是未组合前的形状差别未改变的那些，还是以前的形状差别已改变的形状呢？对此，如果认为是前者，那也是不合理的。为什么呢？按照你们的观点，车的车轮等各个支分在未组合的时候，形状如何存在，后来组合成为车，被认为是成立的时候，也和之前一样存在的话，那么就像未组合分离的支分那些不存在车一样，现在支分组合的时候，也不是存在车，因为你们认为仅仅各个支分的形状是车，而且前后各个支分的形状没有差别。如果说是第二种情况，也就是形状的差别后来出现和之前不一样，那个就成为车的话，如果现在车已经成立的时候，车轮等和车轴，钉子等车的支分的形状差别明显，也就是方形，长形和圆形等的形状和未组合的时候，有不一致的差别，如果各个支分不一致的形状能够被眼识所取，那也是不存在的，因此仅仅各个支分的形状不是车。如果认为车轮等支分组合的聚合的特殊形状是车，这也是不合理的，已经说过了。如果所谓的聚合，是事物也就是实有稍微存在的话，那么就会安立为依彼而起的形状。所谓的支分聚合是实有
English
Because it is not desirable to have a component that is not a component, and that is also to be refuted. The word "also" is a particle that summarizes the meaning of the aggregation that has not been actually stated. The way of dwelling is that merely the shape of the components is not reasonable as a chariot, and merely the aggregation is also not reasonable, in order to understand this reason. The second point is, furthermore, if you think that merely the shape of the chariot is a chariot, then is that shape of each component, or of the aggregation? If it is the former, is it the shape of those whose shape difference has not changed before the combination, or is it the shape of those whose shape difference has changed before? If you think it is the former, that is also unreasonable. Why? According to your view, the shape of each component such as the wheel of the chariot is the same as it was when it was not combined. If it exists in the same way as before when it is combined and recognized as a chariot, then just as there is no chariot in those uncombined and separated components, there is also no chariot when the components are combined now, because you think that only the shape of each component is a chariot, and there is no difference in the shape of each component before and after. If it is the second case, that is, the difference in shape is different from the previous one, and that becomes a chariot later, if the shape difference of the components of the chariot such as the wheel and the axle, the nail, etc. is obvious when the chariot has already been established, that is, the shape of the square, the long and the round, etc. is different from the time when it was not combined, if the inconsistent shape of each component can be taken by the eye consciousness, that is also non-existent, therefore only the shape of each component is not a chariot. If you think that the special shape of the aggregation of components such as the wheel is a chariot, that is also unreasonable, it has been said. If the so-called aggregation is a thing, that is, a real thing that exists slightly, then it will be established as a shape that arises from it. The so-called aggregation of components is a real thing
Chinese
一点也没有。什么原因呢？按照你的观点，集合什么也没有，即一点实质性的存在都没有。形状不是依赖于以支分集合作为施设处来安立的，因为你承认像这样的假立存在都只是以实质性存在作为所依赖的基础。而且，你也承认支分集合是假立的。因此，对于没有任何东西，即一点实质性的存在都没有的东西，依赖于它作为施设处。 在这种车的例子中，如何能把形状看作是车呢？不能看作是。这里，对方承认假立的事物是依赖于各自独立的实质性存在作为施设处来安立的，并且认为集合和形状都是假立的。如果认为集合是形状的施设处，那只是制造了矛盾。就像不能把人的颜色安立为人一样，对于车来说，也不能把它的颜色和形状安立为车，因为这两者是车的近取因。要理解这一点。第二点是：即使集合是不真实的假立存在，依赖于它也能变成不真实的，即假立存在的形状吗？如果你认为依赖于假立存在的集合，就能安立假立存在的形状，那么就像你所希望的那样，要知道依赖于像无明和种子这样的不真实的因，就能产生像行和苗芽这样具有不真实的自性或体性的果。同样，要知道除此之外，所有具有因果体性的不真实的自性也都会产生。即使付出百倍的努力也无法吃到它的肉，对于像幻影中的动物一样虚假的事物，执着于显现为真实的现象是没有意义的，这有什么用呢？对于这一点，自己的许多宗派都说，瓶子的形状等八个微尘以那种方式聚合在一起就是瓶子，因此会产生瓶子的想法。这个说法也被车的例子所否定，因此那是不合理的。此外，先前已经说过没有自性生。
English
There is not even a little bit. What is the reason? According to your view, there is nothing to the collection, that is, there is not even a little bit of substantial existence. Shape is not established by relying on the collection of limbs as the basis of imputation, because you admit that such imputed existences only rely on substantial existence as the basis. Moreover, you also admit that the collection of limbs is imputed. Therefore, for something that is nothing, that is, there is not even a little bit of substantial existence, relying on it as the basis of imputation. In this example of a chariot, how can one regard the shape as the chariot? One cannot regard it as such. Here, the opponent admits that imputed things are established by relying on each independent substantial existence as the basis of imputation, and considers both collection and shape to be imputed. If one considers the collection to be the basis of imputation for shape, then one is only creating contradictions. Just as one cannot establish the color of a person as the person, for a chariot, one cannot establish its color and shape as the chariot, because these two are the proximate causes of the chariot. This is to be understood. The second point is: even if the collection is an unreal imputed existence, can it become an unreal, that is, an imputed existence of shape, by relying on it? If you think that by relying on the imputed collection, one can establish the imputed shape, then just as you wish, know that by relying on unreal causes such as ignorance and seeds, one can generate fruits such as actions and sprouts that have an unreal nature or essence. Similarly, know that in addition to that, all unreal natures that have the nature of cause and effect will also arise. Even if one makes a hundredfold effort, one cannot eat its meat. For false things like animals in illusions, clinging to phenomena that appear as real is meaningless. What is the use of this? Regarding this, many of one's own sects say that the shape of a pot, etc., is the collection of eight dust particles that are aggregated in that way, therefore the idea of a pot arises. This statement is also refuted by the example of the chariot, so that is unreasonable. Furthermore, it has been said before that there is no self-existence.
Tibetan
ད་ཟིན་པས་གཟུགས་སོགས་ཀྱང་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་ཡོད་པ་མིན་ནོ། །དེ་ཡི་ཕྱིར་ཡང་རྫས་སུ་ཡོད་པའི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པ་ཅན་དུ་འདོད་པ་བུམ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་མི་རིགས་པས། བུམ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དེ་དག་གཟུགས་ལ་སོགས་པའི་དབྱིབས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་མི་རིགས་སོ། །གསུམ་པ་ནི། འདིར་སྨྲས་པ་གལ་ཏེ་འོ་ན་ཤིང་རྟ་འདིའི་བཏགས་དོན། སྔར་བཤད་པའི་ཚུལ་གྱིས་རྣམ་པ་བདུན་དུ་བཙལ་བ་ན། ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པ་དེའི་ཚེ་ཤིང་རྟ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་བས་ཤིང་རྟས་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་ཐ་སྙད་འདོགས་པ་དེ་རྒྱུན་ཆད་པར་འགྱུར་ན། དེ་མི་འཐད་དེ། ཤིང་རྟ་འོན་ཅིག་ཉོས་ཤིག །ཆོས་ཤིག་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་བྱ་དགོས་པར་མཐོང་བ་ཡང་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་འཇིག་རྟེན་ལ་གྲགས་པའི་ཕྱིར་ན་ཤིང་རྟ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ནི་ཡོད་དོ་ཞེ་ན། ཉེས་པ་འདི་ནི་རང་ཅག་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ནང་ནས་ཁྱོད་ཁོ་ན་ལ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར་བས། ངེད་ཀྱིས་ཁྱེད་ལ་དགོད་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཇི་ལྟར་ཡིན་སྙམ་ན། ཁྱོད་ཀྱིས་ཤིང་རྟའི་བཏགས་དོན་རྣམ་པར་དཔྱད་པ་སྟེ་བཙལ་ནས། ཤིང་རྟ་འཇོག་པར་བྱེད་ཅིང་བཏགས་དོན་མ་བཙལ་བར་འགྲུབ་པའི་ཐབས་གཞན་ཁས་མ་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང་། བཏགས་དོན་རྣམ་པ་བདུན་དུ་བཙལ་བ་ན། ཤིང་རྟ་འོན་ཅིག་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་སོགས་ཀྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཐ་ སྙད་རྣམས་ཁྱོད་ལ་ཇི་ལྟར་འགྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། །རྩོད་པ་དེ་ལ་བསྟན་བཅོས་མཛད་པས་ནི་ལན་དེ་ལྟར་འདེབས་ལ། ད་ལྟའི་བོད་ཀྱི་ཐལ་འགྱུར་བར་འདོད་པ་རྣམས་ནི། རྣམ་པ་བདུན་དུ་བཙལ་བས་མ་རྙེད་ན་ཤིང་རྟ་འཇོག་མི་ནུས་སོ་ཞེས་རྩོད་པ་དེ་ཉིད་དབུ་མ་པའི་ལུགས་སུ་སྨྲ་སྟེ། དེས་ནི་རྣམ་པར་དག་པའི་ལུགས་ངན་རྟོག་གི་བཙོག་ཆུས་འབད་ནས་སློད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཁོ་བོ་ཅག་ལ་ནི་སྔར་བཤད་པའི་རྩོད་པའི་ཉེས་པ་དེ་མེད་དེ། ཤིང་རྟ་དེ་ནི་དེ་ཉིད་དུ་སྟེ་དོན་དམ་པའམ། འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་བཏགས་དོན་རྣམ་པ་བདུན་གྱིས་བཙལ་བ་ན་ཤིང་རྟ་འགྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར་བ་མིན་མོད་ཀྱི། དེ་ལྟ་ནའང་ཤིང་རྟ་འདི་ནི་བཏགས་དོན་འཚོལ་བའི་རྣམ་པར་དཔྱད་པ་མེད་པར་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཐ་སྙད་ཉིད་ལས། སྔོན་པོ་དང་ཚོར་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལྟར་འདིར་ནི་རང་གི་ཡན་ལག་འཕང་ལོ་སོགས་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་འདོགས་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེའི་ཕྱིར་ས་མྱུག་སོགས་ལ། རྟེན་འབྲེལ་རྐྱེན་ཉིད་འདི་པ་ཙམ་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ལྟར། ཤིང་རྟ་ཡང་རང་གི་ཡན་ལག་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་བཏགས་པར་ཁས་བླངས་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཁོ་བོ་ཅག་གི་ཕྱོགས་ལ་ཤིང་རྟ་འོན་ཅིག་ཅེས་པ་སོགས་ཀྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཐ་སྙད་
Chinese
既然如此，色等也不是自性存在的。因此，认为实有的近取者如瓶子等是不合理的。瓶子等那些也不是色等形状的差别。第三，这里所说的是，如果这样，那么这辆车的命名意义，按照前面所说的道理，以七种方式寻找时，如果不存在，那么车就不存在了，因此车在世间安立名称就会中断。那是不合理的，因为也会看到必须要做买一辆车，做功德等事。因此，如果因为世间流传而说车等是存在的，那么这种过失只会落在我们两人中的你身上。我们会嘲笑你的。如果想知道是怎样的，因为你详细分析寻找车的命名意义，从而安立车，并且没有承认不寻找命名意义就能成立的其他方法。在以七种方式寻找命名意义时，买一辆车等世间的名称，对你来说怎么能成立呢？不能成立的。论著作者会那样回答那个辩论。现在西藏的应成派论者认为，如果以七种方式寻找而找不到，就不能安立车，这样说那个辩论是中观派的观点。那样就是用恶劣的分别念的污水努力地冲刷清净的宗派。我们没有前面所说的辩论的过失，因为那辆车不是以胜义谛或世俗谛，以七种方式寻找命名意义就能成立的。即使那样，这辆车也不需要寻找命名意义的分析，只是从世间的名称本身，就像蓝色和感觉等一样，这里是依靠自己的支分轮辐等来安立的，因此就像对地芽等，仅仅承认缘起因一样。车也是因为承认依靠自己的支分来安立的。因此，在我们这一方，买一辆车等世间的名称
English
Since that is the case, forms and so on are not inherently existent either. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider substantially existent things like vases as having a cause. Those vases and so on are not different from the shapes of forms and so on. Thirdly, what is said here is that if that is the case, then the meaning of the designation of this chariot, when sought in seven ways according to the previously explained reasoning, if it does not exist, then the chariot will not exist, and therefore the designation of the chariot in the world will be interrupted. That is unreasonable, because it is also seen that it is necessary to do things like buying a chariot and doing meritorious deeds. Therefore, if it is said that chariots and so on exist because they are known in the world, then this fault will only apply to you alone among the two of us. We will laugh at you. If you want to know how it is, because you analyze and seek the meaning of the designation of the chariot, thereby establishing the chariot, and you have not admitted any other method of establishing it without seeking the meaning of the designation. When seeking the meaning of the designation in seven ways, how will the worldly names such as buying a chariot be established for you? They will not be established. The author of the treatise would answer that debate in that way. Now, the Tibetan Prasangikas consider that if the chariot cannot be established if it is not found by searching in seven ways, they say that the debate itself is the view of the Madhyamikas. That is to say, they are striving to wash away the pure tradition with the dirty water of bad conceptualization. We do not have the fault of the aforementioned debate, because that chariot is not established by searching for the meaning of the designation in seven ways, either in the ultimate truth or in the conventional truth of the world. Even so, this chariot does not need the analysis of seeking the meaning of the designation, but only from the worldly name itself, just like blue and feeling, etc., here it is established by relying on its own parts, such as spokes, etc. Therefore, just as for earth sprouts, etc., only dependent origination is admitted. The chariot is also admitted to be established by relying on its own parts. Therefore, on our side, the worldly names such as buying a chariot