Chinese
对于所有下部著作的前行部分，只讲解四个偈颂的前行部分，就像用布蒙住头，却不知道是谁拿走了尾巴一样。总之，虽然后两个争论是关于“成为”的必要性的争论，但四个偈颂并没有回答这些争论。对于第一个争论，虽然四个偈颂给出了回答，但它不是关于“成为”的必要性的争论，因此它们之间是完全没有关联的。那么，这是怎么回事呢？在此之前，已经解释了所证成的量和“成为”。关于量的争论是：“量是了知隐蔽义。”关于“成为”的必要性的争论是：没有这样的量的论证，即使有，也没有人认真对待它。这三个争论在这里由一个偈颂来揭示。第一个争论的答案虽然没有在经部的礼赞中直接出现，但导师通过补充四个偈颂来弥补，这四个偈颂通过理证证明了必要义的全知量，当它成立时，也能证明所知义的全知，就像第一品中“应取和应舍的自性”等一个偈颂一样。因此，将必要义的全知作为一切智者的基础，抓住见道位的菩萨，是不符合这种观点的。第二个争论的答案是通过以顺生的方式解释四个论证来揭示的：首先，通过在多次转世中习惯了慈悲的对境和行相，心性转变为慈悲的自性，并通过理证证明了利益有情，如果这成立，那么“慈爱者为了摧毁痛苦，会对各种方法进行显现的运用”的方式，就能成立为了消除他人的痛苦而运用道的导师。如果这成立，那么“因为从成立中产生第一，所以这两个被说是原因”的方式，就能成立具有断证功德三殊胜的善逝。如果这成立，那么就能成立对道谛的明晰达到极致的证悟。如果这成立，那么“救护者亲自宣说了所见之道”的方式，就能成立将自己所见之道告诉他人的救护者。因此，说有论证，就是“论证来自习惯了慈悲”等等。第三个争论的答案是四个论证。
English
Regarding the preliminary section of all the lower treatises, explaining only the preliminary section of the four verses is like covering the head with a cloth and not knowing who took the tail. In short, although the latter two arguments are arguments about the necessity of "becoming," the four verses do not answer these arguments. For the first argument, although the four verses provide an answer, it is not an argument about the necessity of "becoming," so they are completely unrelated. So, how is this? Before this, the object to be proven, valid cognition, and "becoming" have been explained. The argument about valid cognition is: "Valid cognition is the knowledge of hidden meanings." The argument about the necessity of "becoming" is: there is no such proof of valid cognition, and even if there is, no one takes it seriously. These three arguments are revealed here by one verse. Although the answer to the first argument does not directly appear in the praise of the sutra, the teacher compensates by supplementing four verses, which through reasoning prove the valid cognition of the all-knowing of the necessary meaning, and when it is established, it can also prove the all-knowing of the knowable meaning, just like the one verse in the first chapter, "The nature of what should be taken and what should be abandoned," and so on. Therefore, taking the bodhisattva on the path of seeing as the basis for the all-knowing of the necessary meaning, the all-knowing one, does not conform to this view. The answer to the second argument is revealed by explaining the four proofs in a progressive manner: first, by being accustomed to the object and aspect of compassion in many lifetimes, the nature of the mind is transformed into the nature of compassion, and through reasoning, benefiting sentient beings is proven. If this is established, then in the way that "the loving one, in order to destroy suffering, will manifest the application of various methods," the teacher who applies the path in order to eliminate the suffering of others can be established. If this is established, then in the way that "because the first arises from establishment, these two are said to be the cause," the Sugata with the three special qualities of abandonment and realization can be established. If this is established, then the realization of the truth of the path, clear to the extreme, can be established. If this is established, then in the way that "the protector himself proclaimed the path he saw," the protector who tells others the path he himself saw can be established. Therefore, saying that there is proof is "proof comes from being accustomed to compassion," and so on. The answer to the third argument is the four proofs.
Chinese
通过逆向推理来阐述，首先，通过理证来确立导师，他能如实无误地向他人展示四圣谛的实情。如果这个成立，那么就成立了具足三种殊胜证悟的显现。如果这个成立，那么就成立了引导入道的导师已经先行。如果这个成立，那么就成立了想要消除他人痛苦的慈爱大悲已经先行。因此，这位导师努力实践两种成就之法，这就能成立。也就是说，救护者啊，您是四圣谛的导师。等等。因此，顺向推理是从圆满的因缘聚合之相，来论证果产生的可能性之自性理证。而逆向推理则是以果为相，来论证因已先行，所以，所需要的就是具有量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）的成就之法。要知道，这位导师努力实践成就之法，这两者是各不相同的。这将会利益有缘的所化机。第二，正文的实际内容有二：宣说无有成就之法的邪见；遮破邪见后，展示成就之法。第一部分是：有些人极力宣扬，说薄伽梵是量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）的，而且不需要依赖成就之法，因为一般来说，如果某人是量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量），那么他一定了知所有隐蔽之事物，但实际上并没有这样的情况。而且，也不存在成就此事的因，也不存在对因的努力。第二部分有三：遮破无有量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）后，确立量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）；遮破无有成就之法后，展示成就之法；遮破未曾努力后，确立已经努力。第一部分有四：探求具知一切所需之义者是合理的；对此，理应辨别是否具有知晓意义；展示具知一切所需之义者为量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）；安立彼即是量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）之成就法。第一是：对于希求解脱者而言，无论是了知还是不了知所有隐蔽之事物，只要善为了知解脱之方便，此人即为量（ प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，量）。例如，如果这位导师在不了知解脱之方便的情况下进行教导，那么那些心怀疑惑、担心导师会教授非解脱之道的有识之士们就会认为，导师是具备解脱之方便的善知识。
English
It is shown by explaining in reverse order. First, the savior who shows the truth of the four noble truths to others without distortion is established by reasoning. If that is established, then it is established that the manifestation of the three special realizations is accomplished. If that is established, then it is established that the teacher who leads to the path has gone ahead. If that is established, then it is established that the great compassion of wanting to eliminate the suffering of others has gone ahead. Therefore, it is accomplished that this teacher has diligently practiced the two methods of accomplishment. That is to say, O protector, you are the teacher of the four noble truths. And so on. Therefore, the forward reasoning is the nature of the reason for proving the possibility of the result arising from the sign of the complete collection of causes and conditions. The reverse reasoning is the sign of the result of proving that the cause has preceded, so the need is only to have the means of accomplishment of validity ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure). It should be known separately that this teacher has diligently practiced the means of accomplishment. It will benefit the fortunate disciples. Secondly, there are two actual meanings of the text: expressing the wrong idea of not having the means of accomplishment; refuting the wrong idea and showing the means of accomplishment. The first is: Some people strongly say that the Blessed One is valid ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure), and it is not appropriate to rely on the means of accomplishment, because in general, if a person is valid ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure), then he must know all hidden things, but in reality there is no such situation. Moreover, there is no cause for accomplishing this, and there is no effort to cause. The second has three parts: refuting the absence of validity ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure) and establishing validity ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure); refuting the absence of the means of accomplishment and showing the means of accomplishment; refuting the failure to make efforts and establishing the efforts made. The first has four parts: It is reasonable to seek those who know all the necessary meanings; in this regard, it is reasonable to discern whether there is knowledge of meaning; showing that those who know all the necessary meanings are valid ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure); establishing that it is the means of accomplishment of validity ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure). The first is: For those who seek liberation, whether they know all hidden things or not, as long as they know the means of liberation well, this person is valid ( प्रमाण ，pramāṇa，measure). For example, if this teacher teaches without knowing the means of liberation, then those discerning people who have doubts and worry that the teacher will teach the non-liberation path will think that the teacher is a virtuous friend who possesses the means of liberation.
Chinese
因此，要寻找导师。因为是为了认真对待那位导师所说的解脱之法，所以才寻找善知识。第二，因此，寻求解脱者，对于寻求解脱者来说，应当详细观察在谁那里有作为所要证实的、作为所要追求的智慧。不应观察这位善知识是否知道虫子的数量等，因为这对我们这些寻求解脱者来说，有时根本不需要。第三，因此，对于应当接受的灭谛之如实性，连同道谛的方便道，以及应当舍弃的苦谛之如实性，连同集谛的方便，毫不颠倒地证悟者，你就是可靠的人。而不是仅仅证悟所有隐蔽事物的人才是可靠的人，因为你完全了解解脱的方法。这最初是因为理性无法证实而不接受，而不是因为不可能而不接受。证悟一切者啊！不遮止一切智者。因为我们无法了解，所以才想要了解殊胜者。第四，这位导师是否能看到远处并不重要，能看到所希望的四谛之如实性，他就是可靠的人。如果即使不了解所希望的意义，但能看到远处就是可靠的人，那么，那些了解人们所希望的意义的智者，却看不到远处事物的人，就放弃他们，到这边来吧！去依止秃鹫和空行母等作为老师吧！因为依止他们是合理的。第二部分有五点：以理证成大悲，从大悲中产生导师之理，从导师中产生善逝之理，从善逝中产生救护者之理，因此，成立了有能证成者。第一部分有三点：能证成的自性，能证成的因，以及遣除对能证成的辩驳。第一，因为没有能证成，所以说不合理。如此，可靠的人，你具有能证成，因为你具有不依赖于报答恩情等，平等地希望所有众生都完全脱离痛苦的大悲心。
English
Therefore, one should seek a teacher. It is because one seeks a spiritual friend in order to earnestly practice the path to liberation taught by that teacher. Second, therefore, for those seeking liberation, one should carefully examine who possesses the wisdom that is to be realized and sought after. It is not appropriate to examine whether this spiritual friend knows the number of insects, etc., because that is sometimes completely unnecessary for us who seek liberation. Third, therefore, whoever realizes without error the suchness of the truth of cessation, which is to be accepted, along with the path of means of the truth of the path, and the suchness of the truth of suffering, which is to be abandoned, along with the means of the truth of origin, you are considered a reliable person. It is not the case that only someone who knows all hidden things is a reliable person, because you know well all the methods of liberation. This is initially not accepted because it cannot be proven by reason, but not because it is impossible. O Knower of all! We do not deny the all-knowing one. Because we cannot know, we wish to know the supreme one. Fourth, whether this teacher can see far away or not is not important, but seeing the suchness of the four truths that are desired, that is the reliable person. If seeing far away is a reliable person even without understanding the desired meaning, then abandon those wise people who understand the meaning desired by people but do not see distant things, and come here! Rely on vultures and dakinis, etc., as teachers! Because it is reasonable to rely on them. The second part has five points: proving compassion with reason, the way the teacher arises from that, the way the Sugata arises from that, the way the protector arises from that, therefore, it is established that there is a proof. The first part has three points: the nature of the proof, the cause of the proof, and refuting the objections to it. First, it is not reasonable to say that there is no proof. Thus, reliable person, you have a proof, because you have the compassion that equally wishes all sentient beings to be completely free from suffering, without relying on repaying kindness, etc.
Chinese
是故是为能立。第二者，大悲汝，有因，以于多生串习悲悯之境相故，汝乃生起。第三有二，遣除串习不可能转之诤论，及遣除纵许有亦非超离自性。初中有二，立诤，说破斥。初者，断见者云：悲悯，于多生串习而有成立，不应理，以无有前后世故，谓有分别之识乃依于身，故身坏则识流断绝故。所依之方式，如酒之醉力般，识为身之自性耶？如灯之光般，为身之果耶？如蔗糖之甜味般，以身之功德之方式而依耶？若如是问。第二有二，略标，广说。初者，悲悯汝，以心识实依于身之理，由串习而有成立，不应理，此不应理，以心识实依于身乃为理智所遮止故。如何耶？谓凡庸取受生之时，呼吸与，诸根与，心识等，非是无有依赖自之同类前者，非唯由身而生，若生者，则于石等亦应生心等，则太过极故。且见此生之识能连接前后，有何更殊胜之理耶？以无有理者，以何故谓于死殁之际无有连接耶？以理相同故。昔日诸师以第一句为略标，于广说则作，若无前世则太过极，以理成立有后世等之科判，乃于此串习悲悯之境相成立之时，未分清成立后世为主要，及于下成立苦谛之体性，取蕴为轮回性之时，成立前世为主要之差别。及于何处以暖湿等广说太过极，及以最后之心等广说连接之论之