Chinese
如果产生，那么那时因果那些能力会变成一个，就像河流和海洋的水汇合一样。如果变成一个，就不能区分“这是因，这是果”，因为产生者和果没有差别，谁产生了什么？如果各自独立，没有汇合而产生，那么这个被认为是果的因，和不是它的因的那些，产生与不产生就没有差别，因为自性成立的各自独立的事物会变成没有关联的其他事物。对于说因果自性成立的人来说，对于所生和能生，接触和不接触的这两种分别抛弃之后，除了那之外，也不会有第三种分别，所以自性成立的因不会产生果。因此，如果按照你的观点，自性成立的因不产生果，因此所谓的果不是自性存在的。将因安立为因的理由是，如果果产生，即使没有果，也能将因安立为因，那么那时因就变成了没有理由安立为因的，这也不是存在的，因此因果二者不是自性存在的。那么按照你的观点是怎样的呢？按照哪位论者的观点，所生和能生二者被认为是自相成立的，对于那样的观点，如果对因和果接触与否进行观察，那么对双方都会变成过失。因为按照哪位论者的观点，事物是由于颠倒分别的势力而产生，并且仅仅是通过名言的分别而安立的缘故。因果这二者都像幻术一样不是自性产生的，虽然没有自性成立，但是就像有次第的所缘的毛发等一样，对于仅仅通过名言的分别而安立的对境来说，与承认自性成立的因果所安立的过失相同的情况是不可能存在的。因此，对于我来说，不会变成如上所说的接触与不接触的过失，并且世间上公认的
English
If it produces, then at that time the powers of those causes and effects will become one, just like the waters of rivers and oceans merging. If they become one, then it is impossible to distinguish "this is the cause, this is the effect," because there is no difference between the producer and the fruit, so what produces what? If they are separate, producing without merging, then this which is considered the cause of the fruit, will be no different from those which are not its causes, whether they produce or do not produce, because the separate things that are established by their own nature will become unrelated other things. For those who say that cause and effect are established by their own nature, after abandoning these two distinctions of contact and non-contact for the produced and the producer, there will be no other third distinction besides that, so the cause established by its own nature will not produce the fruit. Therefore, if according to your view, the cause established by its own nature does not produce the fruit, then the so-called fruit is not self-existent. The reason for establishing the cause as the cause is that if the fruit arises, if even without the fruit, the cause can still be established as the cause, then at that time the cause becomes without reason to be established as the cause, and this is also not existent, therefore both cause and effect are not self-existent. So how is it according to your view? According to whose view the produced and the producer are considered to be established by their own characteristics, for such a view, if one examines whether the cause and the effect are in contact or not, then it will become a fault for both sides. Because according to whose view, things arise due to the power of inverted imputation, and are established only through the imputation of mere terms. Both of these, cause and effect, are unborn by nature, like illusions, and although they are not established by their own nature, they are like hairs and so on that are sequentially perceived. For objects that are established only through the imputation of mere terms, it is impossible to have the same faults as those established by admitting causes and effects that are established by their own nature. Therefore, for me, the faults of contact and non-contact as stated above will not occur, and the things that are renowned in the world
Chinese
未加审察而成立的因果和车等也存在，所以一切都能成立。这里注释者说，驳斥的差别是以自性和自己的体性成立等的因果的损害。如果对说自性不存在如幻术的人反驳，则不适用，必须这样说。不要做出没有区分自性成立和存在二者的差别的 貌似回答。第三有二：驳斥因果以自性成立的过失相同的争论；显示自己没有过失相同的回答。第一是：这里对于驳斥因果以自性成立的回答中，有些人这样说：因产生果时，做接触和不接触的审查，对你来说也是相同的。怎么样呢？你的破斥者以接触破斥所破斥的，还是不接触而破斥的呢？这个过失对你来说难道不是一样吗？是这样的，如果接触而破斥，则会变成一体，谁破斥谁呢？如果是不接触而破斥，那么，不接触的相同的一切都会破斥，这不合理。这两种审查之外也没有第三种审查了。那样做的话，你的破斥者没有破斥所破斥的破斥能力，你的破斥本身就被破斥了，所以间接地，因果的事物也是以自性成立的，为了坚定这个而说的。当貌似破斥者那样说，并且完全摧毁自己的宗派时，那时你不能破斥别人的宗派，不能破斥。另外，因为反驳者自己的话语也以反击他人所抛出的灰尘相同的后发制人，即貌似破斥 者，不讲道理地对一切事物进行诽谤，因此你不会被圣人所接受，即不会被认可。怎么样呢？如果不接触而产生，那么不接触的相同的一切都应该产生，但它们并没有产生，这有什么道理呢？比如，磁铁在不接触就能起作用的地方存在
English
The established without examination, such as cause and effect and chariots, also exist, so everything can be established. Here, the commentator says that the difference in refutation is to speak of the harm to cause and effect, such as being established by nature and one's own essence. If one refutes those who say that there is no self-nature like illusion, then it is not applicable, and one must say so. Do not make a mere semblance of an answer that does not distinguish between the difference between being established by nature and existence. Third, there are two: the argument that the fault is the same in refuting the establishment of cause and effect by nature; showing the answer that one does not have the same fault. The first is: Here, in response to the refutation of the establishment of cause and effect by nature, some say this: When a cause produces an effect, examining contact and non-contact is the same for you. How so? Does your refuter refute the refutable by contact, or does it refute without contact? Is this fault not the same for you? It is so, if it refutes by contact, then it will become one, who refutes whom? If it refutes without contact, then all the same things that do not contact will refute, which is unreasonable. There is no third examination other than these two examinations. If you do that, your refuter does not have the ability to refute the refutable, your refutation itself is refuted, so indirectly, the object of cause and effect is also established by nature, and it is said to strengthen this. When the seeming refuter says that and completely destroys his own sect, then you cannot refute the sect of others, you cannot refute. Furthermore, because the opponent's own words also use the same counter-attack of throwing dust at others, that is, the seeming refuter, Without reason, slandering all things, therefore you will not be accepted by the saints, that is, you will not be recognized. How so? If it is produced without contact, then all the same things that do not contact should be produced, but they are not produced, what is the reason for this? For example, a magnet exists in a place where it can function without contact.
Tibetan
པའི་ལྕགས་འདྲེན་པར་བྱེད་ཀྱི་མ་ཕྲད་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ནི་མི་འདྲེན་ལ། མིག་གིས་ཀྱང་མ་ཕྲད་པ་ཁོ་ནར་རུང་བའི་ཡུལ་ན་གནས་པའི་གཟུགས་མཐོང་གིས། མ་ཕྲད་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་མི་མཐོང་བ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ། རྒྱུས་ཀྱང་མ་ཕྲད་པར་སྐྱེད་དུ་ཟིན་ཀྱང་མ་ཕྲད་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་སྐྱེད་པར་མི་འགྱུར་གྱི། འབྲས་བུ་རུང་བ་ཁོ་ན་སྐྱེད་པར་བྱེད་དོ། །གཞན་ཡང་གང་གི་ཕྱིར་ཁྱོད་ནི་སུན་ཅི་ཕྱིན་དུ་རྒོལ་བ་ཉིད་དུ་ཡང་འགྱུར་ཏེ། རང་གི་ཕྱོགས་བཞག་པ་དང་བྲལ་ཞིང་གཞན་ཕྱོགས་སེལ་བ་ཙམ་ལ་ཞུགས་པའི་རྒོལ་བ་ནི་སུན་ཅི་ཕྱིན་དུ་རྒོལ་བ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་ན། ཁྱོད་ཀྱང་དེ་ལྟར་གནས་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། གཉིས་པ་ལ་བཞི། རང་གི་ཕྱོགས་ལ་སུན་འབྱིན་དང་སྒྲུབ་པ་འཐད་ཚུལ། གཞན་གྱི་ཐལ་བ་མི་མཚུངས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གསལ་བར་བཤད་པ། རང་བཞིན་མེད་པ་སྒྲུབ་ནུས་པ་བཞིན་དུ་གཞན་གྱིས་བཟློག་སྟེ་བསྒྲུབ་མི་ནུས་པ། འདིར་མ་བཤད་པའི་སུན་འབྱིན་ལྷག་མ་ཤེས་པར་བྱེད་ཚུལ་ལོ། །དང་པོ་ལ་གཉིས། ཐ་སྙད་དུ་གཞན་ཕྱོགས་སུན་འབྱིན་པ་ཁས་ལེན་ཚུལ་དང་། རང་གི་ཕྱོགས་སྒྲུབ་པ་ཁས་ལེན་ཚུལ་ ལོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། འདི་ལ་བརྗོད་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། སུན་འབྱིན་པས་སུན་དབྱུང་བྱ་མ་ཕྲད་པར་སུན་ནི་འབྱིན་པར་བྱེད་དམ། འོན་ཏེ་ཕྲད་ནས་སུན་འབྱིན་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ཞེས་སྔར་སྨྲས་ཟིན་པའི་ཉེས་པ་ནི། འདིར་རྒོལ་བ་གང་ལ་ཕྱོགས་ཡོད་པ་སྟེ་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་གྲུབ་པའི་དོན་དམ་འཆའ་བ་དེ་ལ་སྐྱོན་དུ་འགྱུར་གྱི། བདག་ལ་རང་བཞིན་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པའི་དོན་དམ་འཆའ་བའི་ཕྱོགས་འདི་ནི་ཡོད་པ་མིན་པས། ཕྲད་མ་ཕྲད་གཉིས་ཀ་ལ་སྐྱོན་བསྟན་པའི་ཐལ་བར་འགྱུར་བ་འདི་ནི། བདག་ལ་སྲིད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ངེད་ཀྱི་ལྟར་ན་སུན་དབྱུང་བྱ་དང་སུན་འབྱིན་པ་གཉིས་ཀ་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མ་གྲུབ་པར་ཁས་ལེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འགྲེལ་པར་སྔར་གཞན་གྱི་ཕྱོགས་ལ་རྒྱུས་འབྲས་བུ་སྐྱེད་པ་ལ་ཕྲད་མ་ཕྲད་ཀྱི་བརྟག་པ་བྱས་པའི་སྐྱོན་རང་ལ་མི་མཚུངས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་དུ། ཕ་རོལ་པོས་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་རང་གི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གྲུབ་པར་ཁས་བླངས་ལ། རང་གིས་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་སྒྱུ་མ་བཞིན་དུ་ཁས་བླངས་པ་བཀོད་དོ། །སྐབས་འདིར་ཡང་གཞན་ལ་འཕངས་པའི་སྐྱོན་རང་ལ་མི་འོང་བའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་དུ་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཞེས་གསུངས་པས་རང་ལ་མི་མཚུངས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ནི། ཕྱོགས་གཉིས་རང་བཞིན་གྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་ཁས་མི་ལེན་པ་ཡིན་པར་གདོན་མི་ཟ་བར་འདོད་པར་བྱའོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་རྩོད་ཟློག་ལས། གལ་ཏེ་ངས་དམ་
Chinese
就像铁能吸引铁，但不会吸引所有未接触的铁；眼睛能看到处于适合观看之地的物体，但不会看到所有未接触的物体一样；因也一样，即使已经产生了未接触的果，也不会产生所有未接触的果，只会产生适合的果。此外，你为何会成为彻底的辩论者呢？因为舍弃自己的立场，只致力于驳斥对方的辩论者被称为彻底的辩论者。如果问：你也是如此，因为你处于那种状态吗？答：第二部分有四点：自己立场上的驳斥和成立的合理性；阐明对方的过失不相同的原因；就像能成立无自性一样，对方不能反过来成立；以及了解此处未阐述的剩余驳斥的方法。第一部分有两点：名言上承认驳斥对方，以及承认成立自己的立场。 第一点是：在此要说的是，驳斥者在未接触驳斥对象时进行驳斥，还是在接触后进行驳斥呢？先前已经说过的这个过失，对于此处有立场的辩论者，即主张自性成立的胜义谛者来说，会成为过失。但我没有主张自性成立的胜义谛的立场，因此，指出接触和未接触两种情况的过失，对我来说是不可能的。因为按照我们的观点，驳斥对象和驳斥者两者都承认不是自性成立的。注释中，先前对于对方的立场，以因产生果时接触和未接触的考察所产生的过失，自己不相同的原因是，对方承认因果以自己的体性成立，而自己则承认如同无自性的幻象。此时，对于施加于对方的过失，自己不会出现的原因也是因为无自性。因此，所说的自己不相同的原因是，必须认为双方都不承认自性成立。因此，《诤论止息论》中说：如果我立誓……
English
Just as iron attracts iron, but does not attract all untouched iron; the eye sees objects in a place suitable for viewing, but does not see all untouched objects; similarly, even if a cause has already produced an untouched effect, it will not produce all untouched effects, but only produces suitable effects. Furthermore, why would you become a thorough debater? Because a debater who abandons their own position and only engages in refuting the other party is called a thorough debater. If asked: Are you also like that because you are in that state? Answer: The second part has four points: the rationality of refutation and establishment on one's own position; clarifying the reason why the other party's fault is not the same; just as one can establish selflessness, the other party cannot conversely establish it; and how to understand the remaining refutations not explained here. The first part has two points: acknowledging the refutation of the other party in name, and acknowledging the establishment of one's own position. The first point is: Here it should be said, does the refuter refute without touching the object of refutation, or does he refute after touching it? The fault that has been said before, for the debater who has a position here, that is, the one who asserts the ultimate truth of self-existence, will become a fault. But I do not have the position of asserting the ultimate truth of self-existence, so it is impossible for me to point out the faults of both contact and non-contact. Because according to our view, both the object of refutation and the refuter admit that they are not self-existent. In the commentary, the reason why the fault of examining contact and non-contact when the cause produces the effect on the other party's position is not the same for oneself is that the other party admits that the cause and effect are established by their own nature, while oneself admits that they are like illusions without self-nature. At this time, the reason why the fault imposed on the other party does not occur to oneself is also because of selflessness. Therefore, the reason why it is said that oneself is not the same is that it must be considered that both parties do not admit that self-existence is established. Therefore, in the *Cessation of Disputes*, it says: If I vow...