Chinese
如果这样，那会怎么样呢？还有，坏灭之物，是未生之物，还是生起之物？作为生起之物是不合理的，因为它是坏灭的法性。如果认为不遍及，那么你就是坏灭之物而不是生起之物，因为你说了不遍及。如果承认，那么生灭就不是相违的，因为坏灭之物存在于与生起之物不相违之物的体性中。还有，坏灭之物是未生之物吗？坏灭之物，是法性，应成为非物，因为它是未生的。还有，坏灭之物应被置于三时之物的哪一个中？如果说置于现在和未来之物中，那是不行的，因为现在和未来之物是正在坏灭和正在生起的，而坏灭是断绝了正在坏灭和正在生起，坏灭之后就丧失了现在和未来之物的时机。如果说置于过去之物中，那是不行的，因为过去空无一切能起作用的作为。如果空也认为是物，像认为三时实有一样，如果说它是物，那我也没有办法。还有，如果坏灭之物，过去之物能够产生现在之物的果，那么法性，坏灭之物也应能被未来之物产生现在之物的果。即使坏灭的未生之物不存在，但如果虚构为物，在那里生起(199页)，如果那样的事物可能生起，那么那样的事物也可能生起，因为相同没有妨害。如果承认，那么所生和能生的因果就不需要有先后，因为承认了那个。如果承认，那么因果先后颠倒，因果的安立就会完全颠倒，你们这些持有佛陀教法的善妙发心，这个教法的安立方式看起来非常好啊。还有，如果坏灭之物是物，那么坏灭之物是已经坏灭之物那样的物吗？还是非物坏灭的坏灭所反面的物？如果是前者，那么坏灭就会变成不坏灭，或者坏灭不会变成物。如果是后者，那么那样的坏灭之物，法性，应成为不坏灭之物，非物坏灭的坏灭所反面的物
English
If so, what would happen? Also, is a perished thing an unborn thing, or a arising thing? It is unreasonable to be an arising thing, because it is the nature of perishing. If you think it is not pervasive, then you are a perished thing and not an arising thing, because you said it is not pervasive. If you admit it, then arising and ceasing are not contradictory, because the perished thing exists in the nature of a thing that is not contradictory to the arising thing. Also, is a perished thing an unborn thing? A perished thing, a dharma, should become a non-thing, because it is unborn. Also, in which of the three times should a perished thing be placed? If you say it should be placed in the present and future things, that is not possible, because the present and future things are perishing and arising, but perishing is the cessation of perishing and arising, and after perishing, the opportunity for present and future things is lost. If you say it should be placed in the past thing, that is not possible, because the past is empty of all actions that can function. If you consider emptiness to be a thing, like considering the three times to be real, if you say it is a thing, then I have no way to do anything. Also, if a perished thing, a past thing, can produce the fruit of a present thing, then the dharma, a perished thing, should also be able to be produced by a future thing as the fruit of a present thing. Even if the perished unborn thing does not exist, but if it is fabricated as a thing, and arises there (p. 199), if such a thing can arise, then such a thing may also arise, because there is no obstacle to similarity. If you admit it, then the cause and effect of the produced and the producer do not need to be sequential, because you admit that. If you admit it, then the sequence of cause and effect is reversed, and the establishment of cause and effect will be completely reversed, so you who hold the good intention of upholding the Buddha's teachings, this way of establishing the teachings seems very good. Also, if a perished thing is a thing, then is a perished thing a thing like a thing that has already perished? Or is it the opposite of the perishing of a non-thing? If it is the former, then perishing will become non-perishing, or perishing will not become a thing. If it is the latter, then such a perished thing, a dharma, should become a non-perished thing, the opposite of the perishing of a non-thing.
Chinese
哦，因为如此。再者，处于两个不坏灭之事物之间的坏灭事物，作为所立宗，你不可能成为事物的任何因果，因为你的前面有不坏灭的事物是你的因，你的后面有不坏灭的事物不是你的果。如果不成立，坏灭事物作为所立宗，你不可能是坏灭事物，因为你的生因和你所生的果都是不坏灭的事物。如果不遍及，你的生因和你所生的果是不坏灭的事物，你坏灭和(199b)是坏灭事物，发出声音，如同敲响震动三界的天鼓，同时竖起从各方获得胜利的伟大胜幢。再者，坏灭的事物存在于坏灭的事物中吗？还是存在于不坏灭的事物中？如果按照第二种情况，坏灭事物作为所立宗，应是不坏灭的，因为存在于不坏灭的事物本身之中。如果按照第一种情况，坏灭事物作为所立宗，应是不存在的，因为事物中的坏灭是空无事物之法的终结，所以即使存在于事物中，也只是附加假设而说的。如果说不遍及，应是遍及的，存在于坏灭事物中的坏灭事物，只是事物之法的终结，除此之外，没有可以依赖的其他事物之法的基础。例如，声音的事物坏灭消失后，不会依赖于存在元音辅音等事物。第二种情况是，停止或坏灭不会变成事物，因为停止坏灭等不存在的法不适合作为条件。根本是：“停止的话，又是什么样的条件呢？”。再者，如果事物自身坏灭或存在没有成立，那么依赖于它的非事物也无法成立。坏灭的事物怎么会变成事物呢？正如所说：“如果事物没有成立，非事物也不会成立。”以及，在耗尽坏灭中不会产生事物之法，因为停止断绝中没有产生。正如所说：“在耗尽中没有产生。”以及，耗尽坏灭不会变成事物，因为坏(200a)灭没有变化。正如所说：“在耗尽中没有毁灭。”
English
Oh, because of that. Furthermore, a destructible thing that dwells between two indestructible things, as the subject of the proposition, you cannot be any cause and effect of things, because the indestructible thing before you is your cause, and the indestructible thing after you is not your effect. If it is not established, a destructible thing as the subject of the proposition, you cannot be a destructible thing, because both your generating cause and the effect you generate are indestructible things. If it does not pervade, your generating cause and the effect you generate are indestructible things, you are destructible and (199b) are destructible things, making a sound, like beating the great drum of the gods that shakes the three realms, and at the same time raising the great victory banner that wins from all directions. Furthermore, does the destructible thing exist in the destructible thing? Or does it exist in the indestructible thing? According to the second case, a destructible thing as the subject of the proposition, should be indestructible, because it exists in the indestructible thing itself. According to the first case, a destructible thing as the subject of the proposition, should be non-existent, because the destruction in things is empty of the end of the dharma of things, so even if it exists in things, it is only said by adding assumptions. If you say it does not pervade, it should pervade, the destructible thing that exists in the destructible thing is only the end of the dharma of things, and there is no other basis for the dharma of things to rely on. For example, when the thing of sound is destroyed and disappears, it does not depend on the existence of vowels and consonants. The second case is that cessation or destruction does not become a thing, because the non-existent dharma such as cessation and destruction is not suitable as a condition. The root is: "If there is cessation, what kind of condition is it?". Furthermore, if the thing itself is destroyed or its existence is not established, then the non-thing that depends on it cannot be established either. How can a destroyed thing become a thing? As it is said: "If the thing is not established, the non-thing will not be established." And, in exhaustion and destruction, the dharma of things does not arise, because there is no arising in cessation and interruption. As it is said: "In exhaustion there is no arising." And, exhaustion and destruction do not become things, because des(200a)truction has no change. As it is said: "In exhaustion there is no destruction."
Tibetan
།ཅེས་དང༌། ཁྱད་པར་སྐྱེ་བ་ཞིག་དངོས་ཀྱིས་རྒ་ཤིའི་དངོས་པོ་བསྐྱེད་པ་ནི་ཆེས་མི་རིགས་ཏེ། བདུན་ཅུ་པ་ལས། རྟེན་འབྱུང་ཡན་ལག་བཅུ་གཉིས་གང༌། །སྡུག་བསྔལ་འབྲས་ཅན་དེ་མ་སྐྱེས། །སེམས་གཅིག་ལ་ཡང་མི་འཐད་ལ། །དུ་མ་ལ་ཡང་མི་འཐད་དོ། །ཞེས་པའི་འགྲེལ་པར། གང་གི་ལྟར་སེམས་གཅིག་ཡིན་པ་དེའི་ལྟར་ན་འབྲས་བུ་རྒྱུ་དང་ལྷན་ཅིག་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །གང་གི་ལྟར་སེམས་ཐ་དད་པ་ཡིན་པ་དེའི་ལྟར་ན་ཡན་ལག་སྔ་མ་སྔ་མ་ཞིག་པ་ཕྱི་མ་ཕྱི་མའི་རྒྱུ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་འབྱུང་ངོ༌། །ཡང་རྒྱུ་རྐྱེན་གྱིས་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་བྱས་པའི་དངོས་པོ་ནི་དེ་ཉིད་ཚོགས་པ་ལ་གེགས་དབང་གིས་ཞིག་པའི་ཆོས་དེ་ནི་དངོས་པོར་ཡོད་པ་མིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་པོ་ལེགས་ལྡན་བྱེད་ཀྱིས་རྟོག་གེ་འབར་བར། སྟོང་ཉིད་ལྟ་བ་གོམས་བྱས་པས། །ཉོན་མོངས་འཇུག་པ་བཅོམ་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཞེས་བྱ་བར་སྨྲས་ཏེ། རྒྱུ་དང་རྐྱེན་ཚོགས་པ་དང་ཐ་དད་པའི་དངོས་པོ་དང་ཞིག་པ་དག་ལ་དངོས་པོ་མི་དམིགས་པའི་ཕྱིར། གང་ལ་འདོད་ཆགས་དང་ཁོང་ཁྲོ་དང་གཏི་མུག་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། དེ་ལྟར་ཉོན་མོངས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་མཐུ་བཅོམ་པའི་སྲིད་པ་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ཉོན་མོངས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་ཀྱང་གནོད་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཞེས་དང༌། ཞིག་པ་དངོས་པོར་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཆོས་གང་གིའང་རྐྱེན་དུ་བརྟེན་པར་མི་འབྲེལ་ཞེས། དེར༑ གལ་ཏེ་དངོས་མེད་གཞན་བརྟེན་འགྱུར། །དངོས་པོ་མེད་ཕྱིར་ཞིག་པ་བཞིན། །དེ་ནི་གཉེན་པོར་མི་འདོད་དེ། །གཞན་ལ་བརྟེན་ཕྱིར་ཞིག་བཞིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་འབྱུང་ལ། གཞན་ཡང་སློབ་དཔོན་ཆེན་(༢༠༠བ) པོ་ཞི་བ་འཚོས། ཚད་མའི་བསྡུས་ཆེན་ལས། དངོས་པོ་བརྟན་པ་བཀག་པའི་སྐབས་སུ་མུ་སྟེགས་ཁ་ཅིག བུམ་སོགས་ཀྱི་དངོས་པོ་ལྟ་བུ་མི་རྟག་པའི་དངོས་པོ་དང༌། རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་དང་ནམ་མཁའ་ལྟ་བུ་རྟག་པའི་དངོས་པོ་གཉིས་སུ་འདོད་པ་ལས་འཕྲོས་ནས་ཞིག་འགྱུར་ཞེས་པའི་འགྱུར་སྒྲ་ལས་ཞིག་པ་མི་རྟག་པའི་དངོས་པོར་འགྱུར་བ་དང༌། ཞིག་པ་ཉིད་ལས་དངོས་པོ་གཞན་འབྱུང་བས་ཞིག་པ་དངོས་པོར་འགྱུར་སྙམ་ན། ཞིག་པ་མ་ཞིག་པའི་བདག་དངོས་སུ་མེད་པས། དེ་ལས་དེ་མ་ཐག་བྱུང་གི་དངོས་པོར་མེད་ལ། ཞིག་འགྱུར་གྱི་འགྱུར་སྒྲས་མི་རྟག་པའི་དངོས་པོ་མི་སྟོན་ཏེ། མི་ལ་བོང་བུར་བཏགས་པ་ཙམ་གྱིས་མི་བོང་བུ་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། ཞིག་པ་དངོས་མེད་སླར་དངོས་པོར་མི་ལྡོག་ཅེས། དེར་ཇི་སྐད་དུ། ཞིག་པ་ཉིད་ནི་བདག་མེད་ཕྱིར། །དེ་མ་ཐག་བྱུང་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །མ་བྱུང་བྱུང་བ་ལྡན་པ་ཡང༌། །ནམ་
Chinese
如是。特別是，直接由生引發衰老的現象，這是極不合理的。在《七十頌》中說：「何為緣起十二支？痛苦之果未生。於一念亦不合，於多念亦不合。」在該頌的注釋中說：「以何種方式認為心是一體的，那麼果就會與因同時產生。以何種方式認為心是各異的，那麼前一個支分壞滅就不是後一個支分的因。」又，由因緣所區別的事物，當該事物聚集時，由於障礙的力量而壞滅的法，並非實有。如是，大學者善護說於《燃燒論理》中：「串習空性見，為摧毀煩惱之生起。」說到，因為對於因和緣的聚集以及與之相異的事物和壞滅，不見實有。對於誰不會產生貪欲、嗔恨和愚癡？如是，摧毀了煩惱之力的有，依賴於此的有，也不會造成損害。又，因為壞滅不是實有，所以任何法都不依賴於因緣。在那裡說：「若無實有轉為他者所依，因無實有故如壞滅。彼非視為對治，因依賴於他者故如壞滅。」另外，大學者寂護於《定量總集》中，在遮破事物恆常的章節中，某些外道認為瓶等事物是不恆常的事物，而極微和虛空等是恆常的事物，由此引申出壞滅轉變的轉變之聲，壞滅轉變為不恆常的事物，以及從壞滅本身產生其他事物，因此認為壞滅轉變為事物。由於壞滅沒有未壞滅的自體，因此從它不會立即產生事物，並且壞滅轉變的轉變之聲並不表示不恆常的事物，就像人僅僅被稱為驢子，人不會變成驢子一樣，壞滅的非實有不會再次轉變為實有。在那裡如是說：「壞滅自性無，故彼無間生非有。未生與生相合亦，如
English
Thus. In particular, it is highly unreasonable for birth to directly cause aging and death. As it says in the "Seventy Verses": "What are the twelve links of dependent origination? The fruit of suffering is not born. It is not consistent with one mind, nor is it consistent with many minds." In the commentary on this verse, it says: "In what way is the mind considered to be one, then the result will arise simultaneously with the cause. In what way are the minds considered to be different, then the destruction of the earlier limb is not the cause of the later limb." Furthermore, the object that is distinguished by causes and conditions, when that object is assembled, the dharma that is destroyed by the power of obstacles is not an existing object. Thus, the great scholar Śāntarakṣita says in the Tattvasamgraha: "By practicing the view of emptiness, in order to destroy the arising of afflictions." It is said that because one does not perceive an object in the aggregation of causes and conditions and the objects and destructions that are different from them. For whom will there be no attachment, anger, and ignorance? Thus, the existence that has destroyed the power of afflictions, the existence that relies on this, will also not cause harm. Also, because destruction is not an object, no dharma depends on causes and conditions. There it says: "If the non-existent transforms into dependence on another, because there is no object, like destruction. That is not regarded as an antidote, because it depends on another, like destruction." Furthermore, the great scholar Śāntarakṣita in the Tattvasamgrahapañjikā, in the section on refuting the permanence of objects, some heretics believe that objects such as pots are impermanent objects, and atoms and space are permanent objects, from which the sound of change of destruction arises, destruction changes into impermanent objects, and from destruction itself other objects arise, therefore they think that destruction changes into objects. Since destruction does not have an undestroyed self, therefore an object does not arise immediately from it, and the sound of change of destruction does not indicate an impermanent object, just as a person is merely called a donkey, a person does not become a donkey, the non-existent of destruction does not revert to being an object again. There it says: "Destruction itself is selfless, therefore what arises immediately from it is non-existent. The combination of the unborn and the born is also, like