English
Similarly, if it is uncertain whether you will be born or not, merely because of the difference in whether the habit of event manifestation is mature or not, then even if realizing the external object from that sign is possible, it is also for saying so. The third part has two points: even without an external object, the agent and the knower are reasonable. The knower is mind manifestation, and refuting arguments. The first point is: if there is no external object, then the concepts of a seed producing a sprout, and inferring fire from smoke, etc., will become impossible. If someone says that, then the seed producing a sprout, and the proof of fire from the sign of smoke, such concepts that successively rely on external objects in name, as the agent and the knower, are also a dharma. If analyzed, it does not rely on the external object. If it is not dependent on the external object, but dependent on the stream of consciousness that appears as seeds, etc., then immediately appearing as sprouts, etc., like that definitely connected, that is, dependent on the consciousness of birth. If understanding is done through the concepts of agent and knower, then what contradicts the valid cognition? Because there is none. The second point is: if that is the case, then smoke will not be produced by fire, because the consciousness of smoke manifestation is not produced by the consciousness of fire manifestation, and there is no other fire and smoke besides that. If admitted, then smoke as a result is a dharma. From you, on some basis, the cause is not incomprehensible, because you are not produced by fire. If smoke manifestation is considered the cause of fire manifestation, then from the sign of smoke, how will fire be definitely understood? Because causes do not necessarily produce their results. If someone says that, then in the view of the Mind-Only school, in name, inferring fire from smoke, for that consciousness of smoke manifestation, is a dharma. From your sign, on some basis, the fire manifestation consciousness that can awaken the habit of clear fire manifestation will be understood as being able to arise, that is, will be proven. The external fire and the consciousness of fire manifestation exist now, but it is not an inference, because on some basis, the proof of the arising of fire manifestation consciousness possesses three conditions, while the present proof of external fire and fire manifestation does not possess three conditions. So, what is the concept of smoke arising from fire like? For the Mind-Only school
Chinese
对方说。在名言中，火生烟的立宗是合理的。因为，任何心相续，对于能生起显现为火的心的习气之精华，它本身就是能明晰地显现为烟的心的生起之因，因此。在此，对于唯识宗来说，显现为火的习气是显现为火的心的近取因，并且是显现为烟的心的俱生助缘，因此在名言中安立火生烟的立宗。这是因为，在反驳者的相续中，虽然在显现为烟的心之前没有显现为火的心，但是因为有显现为火的习气，所以才生起那个心。第二，对于不承认外境的唯识宗的智者们来说，有刚才所说的辩论和回答。不必为了消除那样的辩论，经部宗，因为依赖于承认外境的实有，所以也说心有两种方式。也就是说，因为通过同时体验显现为境的意识和在那上面显现的境的形相的确定而成立。第四，从根识清晰与不清晰的差别来成立，有三种：三种显现都是心，如果是境，则太过分，从境所生则避免相同。第一，像月亮一样的法，你那里观看的多个根识的显现，成立为心本身那样显现的两种方式。因为在你那里，当很多人观看时，由于根识清晰与不清晰等差别，而生起对你进行观察的多个有知者，他们执持清晰与不清晰、混合即中间状态，以及白色之外的黄色等不同的显现。第二，如果识不是从境显现为境的形相，而是无相地执持境的如实，那么，像月亮一样的境的自性，它的有境，即所有缘它的意识，都将变成清晰与不清晰等自性，即具有相同的形相。因为是一。第三，如果识从境中相似地产生，那么因为境是一，形相也将变成一的过失存在于你那里。如果说识依赖于一个境而产生，并且那个境的
English
The opponent says. In name, the establishment of fire producing smoke is reasonable. Because, any mindstream, for the essence of the habit that can generate the mind that appears as fire, it itself is the cause of the clear appearance of the mind that appears as smoke, therefore. Here, for the Yogacara school, the habit of appearing as fire is the immediate cause of the mind appearing as fire, and is also the co-emergent auxiliary condition of the mind appearing as smoke, therefore in name the establishment of fire producing smoke is established. This is because, in the continuum of the refuter, although there is no mind appearing as fire before the mind appearing as smoke, but because there is the habit of appearing as fire, that mind arises. Second, for the Yogacara scholars who do not accept external objects, there is the debate and answer just mentioned. Without having to eliminate such a debate, the Sautrantika school, because it relies on acknowledging the reality of external objects, also says that there are two ways of mind. That is, because it is established by the certainty of simultaneously experiencing the consciousness that appears as an object and the appearance of the object that appears on it. Fourth, from the difference between clear and unclear sense faculties, there are three ways to establish: the three appearances are all mind, if it is an object, it is too much, and being born from an object avoids being the same. First, like the moon, the appearance of multiple sense consciousnesses watching you is established as the two ways in which the mind itself appears. Because in you, when many people watch, due to the differences in clarity and unclearness of the sense faculties, multiple knowers arise who observe you, and they hold clear and unclear, mixed, i.e. intermediate states, and different appearances such as yellow other than white. Second, if consciousness does not appear as the form of the object from the object, but holds the object as it is without form, then the nature of the object like the moon, its object-possessor, i.e. all consciousnesses that cognize it, will become the nature of clarity and unclearness, i.e. have the same form. Because it is one. Third, if consciousness arises similarly from the object, then because the object is one, the fault of the form also becoming one exists in you. If it is said that consciousness arises depending on one object, and that object's
Chinese
彼者，即随行于相的识，是所立宗。有转变为不同相的因，因为从习气的差别等其他一些因，也以相的明与不明等部分而转变为不同的相。譬如此例，依靠父亲，儿子生得像父亲的形貌，但从其他因缘等一些因素，以某些部分能辨别出儿子的好坏差异，就像那样。第五，以无而显现坛城相来成立，有三：成立坛城相是心识本身；如果是外境，则有三种过失妨害；破斥眼识是错乱的所取义。第一，灯等坛城，是具有孔雀翎毛色彩的蓝色和红色等，而且那些光彩鲜明的，被眼睛不清楚的眼识所见到的相，是所立宗。成立为心识自身显现为境的第二种方式，因为虽然显现为境，但并非真实存在于境中。第二，如果说，在那个识的显现境中，新产生了外境事物，因此不是心识本身的第二种方式，那么，那个相是所立宗。为什么在境时存在、具有明亮感官的识，没有能力执取它呢？应是有的，因为是可见的外境事物。另外，见到那个相的眼识，是所立宗。怎么会是感官衰退作为近取因呢？应不是，因为是见到真实的外境事物。另外，那个眼识是所立宗。眼翳使你的近取因感官产生损害，那应不是，因为眼翳已经清除了你的近取因感官的损害，使眼睛变得明亮。因此，对于那个眼识来说，是所立宗。其他人用眼睛见到的，远离坛城的灯焰，又怎么会不清楚呢？应是清楚地见到，因为是清除了近取因感官的损害，是从超越普通感官的事物中见到的眼识。第三，那个眼识是所立宗。灯以外的坛城，不是你（指对方）的实有因，应不是，因为你直接产生显现的，除了感官和作意以外
English
That which follows the appearance, namely consciousness, is the subject of the proposition. There is a cause for transforming into different appearances, because from some other causes such as the difference of habitual tendencies, it also transforms into different appearances by some parts such as the clarity and unclearness of the appearance. For example, like this, relying on the father, the son is born resembling the father's form, but from some other causes and conditions, by some parts, one can distinguish the son's good and bad differences, just like that. Fifth, establishing by the appearance of the mandala that does not exist, there are three: Establishing that the appearance of the mandala is the mind itself; if it is an external object, then there are three faults that harm; refuting that sense consciousness is the object of perception that is mistaken. First, the mandala of a lamp, etc., which has the appearance of peacock feathers, blue and red, etc., and those bright colors, the appearance that is seen by the eye consciousness of unclear eyes, is the subject of the proposition. It is established as the second way that the mind itself appears as the object, because although it appears as the object, it is not truly existent in the object. Second, if you say that in the appearing object of that consciousness, a new external object is produced, therefore it is not the second way of the mind itself, then, that appearance is the subject of the proposition. Why is it that the consciousness that exists at that time and place, with clear senses, does not have the ability to grasp it? It should have, because it is a visible external object. Furthermore, the eye consciousness that sees that appearance is the subject of the proposition. How could it be that the deterioration of the senses is the immediate cause? It should not be, because it is seeing the true external object. Furthermore, that eye consciousness is the subject of the proposition. The cataract has damaged your immediate cause, the senses, that should not be, because the cataract has cleared the damage of your immediate cause, the senses, and made the eyes clear. Therefore, for that eye consciousness, it is the subject of the proposition. How could it be that the flame of the lamp, which is seen by others' eyes and is devoid of the mandala, is not clear? It should be seen clearly, because it has cleared the damage of the immediate cause, the senses, and is the eye consciousness that sees from things beyond ordinary senses. Third, that eye consciousness is the subject of the proposition. The mandala other than the lamp is not your (referring to the opponent) real cause, it should not be, because what you directly produce and appear, other than the senses and attention