Chinese
因此，跟随的成为总相是不合理的。因为与分别念的意识不相异的那者与事物是同一的缘故。第三，事物显现的树木等，是所立宗。你执持为一体的这种分别念是错误的，因为你是事物各异的缘故。第四有二，即确定传承的因，以及舍弃不合理的因。第一，总相执持的因是什么呢？凡是具有称为“树”之名称意义的，相互各异的树木显现等，是所立宗。此树木总相执持的种子是因，因为是它的传承之因的缘故。第二有二，即以两个相似的例子成立各异为因，以及以两个妨害遮止他因总相实有。第一，如果各异的树木显现等产生一个树木的总相执持呢？某些树木显现等，是所立宗。即使是没有总相实有的事物各异，也认知为“是树”的总相一体，并且成办火和房屋等一个意义，因为成办它依靠缘起的自性而决定的缘故。例如，根和境等没有总相一体，也了知意义，而作一个根识一样。以及，石灰华和帕尔帕塔等一种药味没有总相一体，但那二者一起混合或者各自平息瘟疫等一个果，是能见到的，而其他酸奶和嘎贡等不是那样。第二，如果石灰华等具有总相一体才平息瘟疫，因此例子不成立呢？药的总相，是所立宗。平息瘟疫是不合理的，因为药显现等没有差别而存在的缘故。遍布，否则，那些药显现等即使田地好坏等各异，平息瘟疫的能力也应成没有差别。此外，药总相，是所立宗。由于对果没有利益，因此平息瘟疫也是不合理的，因为是稳固的，即常有的缘故。第二，共同宣说有二，即宣说安立者分别念的显现，以及对此安立其他的名称。第一，如果分别念执持显现等相同而安立总相，那么排除的自相是
English
Therefore, it is unreasonable for what follows to become a generality. Because that which is not different from the consciousness of conceptualization is the same as the thing. Third, the manifest objects such as trees are the subject of the proposition. This conceptualization of yours that holds them as one entity is wrong, because you are different entities. Fourth, there are two: identifying the cause of the lineage, and abandoning the unreasonable cause. First, what is the cause of the apprehension of the general? All the manifest trees, which are different from each other and possess the meaning of the name "tree," are the subject of the proposition. The seed of this apprehension of the general of tree is the cause, because it is the cause of its lineage. Second, there are two: establishing difference as the cause with two similar examples, and negating other causes and the reality of the general with two objections. First, how do different manifest trees produce one apprehension of the general of tree as the result? Some manifest trees are the subject of the proposition. Even though they are different entities without the reality of the general, they are recognized as one general, "it is a tree," and they accomplish one meaning, such as fire and houses, because accomplishing it is determined by the nature of dependent origination. For example, even though the senses and objects do not have one general, they understand the meaning and make one sense consciousness, and even though lime and parpata, etc., one kind of medicine, do not have one general, combining those two together or separately pacifies one result, such as epidemics, is seen, but others such as yogurt and gagong, etc., are not like that. Second, if lime and others only pacify epidemics because they have one general, then the example is not established? The general of medicine is the subject of the proposition. It is unreasonable to pacify epidemics, because the manifest medicines exist without difference. It is pervasive, otherwise, even if those manifest medicines have different fields, good or bad, etc., their ability to pacify epidemics should become without difference. Furthermore, the general of medicine is the subject of the proposition. Since it does not benefit the result, it is also unreasonable to pacify epidemics, because it is stable, that is, permanent. Second, there are two common explanations: explaining the appearance of the conceptualization that establishes, and also establishing other terms for it. First, if conceptualization establishes the general by holding the manifest objects as the same, then the excluded self-characteristics are