Chinese
为了阻止错误的确定，使用“两者相同”的术语，将否定符号应用于两者，这是从确定性的角度来看。这与仅适用于不可见事物未被观察到的论证相矛盾。第二点是，某些事物与经论中要表达的主题无关，并且事物存在于感官之外，但不能被视为显而易见，并且没有作为论证的标志，这些情况是主题。因为在这些情况下，成为主题的人的量度没有观察到，所以如何确定不存在？因为即使你存在，那个人的量度也没有完全观察到你。因此，食肉者成为主题的人的相续中的量度是主题。它不会变成在任何情况下都命名的量度，因为它的结果不是确定食肉者存在与否的确定性知识。在自释中说：“因为量度是具有确定性结果的。” 喇嘛说：“即使仅仅掌握了以无常等形式区分的特殊性质，它也不是确定性的，因为它是对错误的本质的决定。并且，由于不确定性，它们类似于未被掌握的所见之物，因此它是对它们的量度。” 另一种方式是，它不是，因为量度本身就是具有进入的结果的。 香说：“即使显现的量度掌握了所有形式，它也是对那些进入的对象进行区分的事物的量度。” 噶夏说：“即使不执着于事物，不欺骗本身也不是量度，因为这太过分了。” 就像这样，显现没有区别，即使它在内部产生了一个完全掌握的形式的概念，它也被认为是显现，而它没有产生概念的那个，即使它被掌握了，也没有被掌握。并且，在不产生确定的地方，不适用追求所有事物的形式，因此可以说它不是量度。否则就不是了。 那些被说的话的意义，一些古代人说：“显现被认为是确定的，并且阻止了不产生确定性也不是量度。” 这是不合理的，因为在佛陀的境界中，量度
English
To prevent erroneous certainty, using the term "both are the same," applying the negative sign to both, this is from the perspective of certainty. This contradicts applying it only to the argument of the unobserved non-apprehension. The second point is that some things are unrelated to the subject matter expressed in the scriptures, and things exist beyond the senses but cannot be seen as obvious, and there is no sign of proof, these instances are the subject. Since the measure of the person who has become the subject in these instances does not observe, how is it established as definitely non-existent? Because even if you exist, the measure of that person does not fully observe you. Therefore, the measure in the continuum of the person who has become a subject of a meat-eater is the subject. It does not become a measure that is named in any case, because its result is not the certainty knowledge that determines whether a meat-eater exists or not. In the auto-commentary, it says, "Because measures are those that have a result of certainty." Lha said, "Even if only the particular nature distinguished by forms such as impermanence is grasped, it is not certainty because it is the determination of the essence of error. And, because of uncertainty, they are similar to unseen things that have not been grasped, therefore it is a measure for them." Another way is that it is not, because measure itself is that which has a result of entering. Sham said, "Even the measure of manifestation, when grasping all forms, is a measure for those things that are distinguished by the object of entering." Ka Shi said, "Even not being deceived in the meaning of non-attachment is not itself a measure, because that is too extreme." Like this, manifestation has no distinction, even if it internally generates a concept of a form that is completely grasped, it is considered manifestation, and that which it does not generate a concept for, even if it is grasped, is not grasped. And, in the place where certainty is not generated, the pursuit of all things is not applicable, therefore it can be said that it is not a measure. Otherwise it is not. The meaning of those words, some ancient people said, "Manifestation is considered certain, and it prevents that which does not generate certainty from being a measure." This is unreasonable, because in the realm of the Buddha, measure