English
The previous dust, as the subject, you are not a factor that hinders Dharmakirti, because if Dharmakirti treats you from the perspective of meaning, you will receive the answer "I agree"; if he treats you from the perspective of exclusion, you will receive the answer "uncertain". The second point is divided into two parts: the negative inference is established by the commitment itself, and the establishing inference is established by the reasoning of reality. The first part is: Deṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) Inference is established as valid, because it is established as the valid of negative exclusion. If it is said that it is determined by direct perception, then, Medṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) As the subject of sense perception, you are not the valid of negative exclusion, because you are the consciousness arising from your own object of apprehension. If it is not established, then as the subject, even if there are obstacles between you and the object, you will arise, because you are the consciousness that does not depend on the object of apprehension. Galaṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) If it is said that it is determined by the reversal of the direct perception that grasps the dharma to be negated, and not determined by inference, then, as the subject of the reversal of direct perception, you are not determining the general characteristic, because if it is determined that your general characteristic does not exist, then there will be the two faults of self-contradictory words and contradictory commitments. The second part is: Gzhanaṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) Furthermore, inference is established as valid, because in the continuum of the seer there is the valid that understands the minds of others. Smraṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) As the subject of verbal expression, the speaker is the correct cause for establishing the person as having altruistic intention, because it is the reason that fulfills the three aspects regarding that. If it is said that the wisdom that understands the object to be established from the cause that fulfills the three aspects is not valid, then, Śluṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) It, as the subject, is valid, because it is non-deceptive consciousness. If it is said that even if the three aspects are fulfilled, it will not become the correct cause, because some causes that fulfill the three aspects are seen to be erroneous, then, Rtagṁs. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) As the subject of the cause that fulfills the three aspects, you are not the erroneous cause in the object to be established, because the wisdom that grasps you as the erroneous cause in the object to be established is wrong view. Gaṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) As the subject of smoke, your cause establishes the relationship of that-born on the cause-dharma of having fire on the mountain with smoke, because your nature is born from fire. Combine the conditioned and impermanent dharmas into a single relationship. Raṁ. (Tibetan, Devanagari, Romanized Sanskrit, Chinese literal meaning) Tsa
Chinese
如果三相俱全的理由成立，那么它必然不会与自己的论证对象相混淆，因为如果它与自性或因果关系中的任何一种相关联，那么它必然不会与自己相关联的对象相混淆。例如：未观察到原因的遍及性的正确理由，与理由的性质相关联成立，因为与理由相关的理由的性质相关联成立。第三个是：总的来说，如果后来的量是正确的，那么对于眼前的现象来说，所有对你来说是隐藏的事物都应该不存在，因为对你来说是隐藏的事物没有被显现所看到。例如，就像来世的事物一样。如果这不成立，因为现在隐藏的事物在其他时间会被感官的显现所看到。对于眼前的现象来说，在其他时间，所有隐藏的事物都不会被感官的显现所看到，因为在其他时间，感官的物质性和原因产生结果的能力没有被显现所看到。如果因为这个原因它们不存在，那么感官意识和结果的产生就会变得没有原因，因为感官的物质性和原因产生结果的能力不存在。第四个是：一切。量可以被确立为现量和比量两种，因为存在着通过与概念分离的方式来理解自性的量，以及通过概念来把握共相的方式来理解自性的量。第二种是驳斥多数派的错误观念，分为两部分：一起陈述两种错误的观念，分别解释驳斥的理由。第一部分是：量。有理智的人说：量啊，你不会把无常的颜色理解为无常，因为你确定了所量为自相和共相两种。这是普遍的，因为无常的颜色是自相和共相的混合。因此，理解无常颜色的心识，会变成现量和比量之外的其他量，因为任何把握共相的量都不依赖于标志。特殊。分析家说：看到差异的认知心识是现量和比量之外的其他量，因为依赖于标志的现量是不同的。因为标志与它所适用的对象没有关联，所以它也不是推论。其他。因此，量有一和三
English
If a reason with all three aspects is valid, then it must not be confused with its own object of proof, because if it is related to either identity or causality, then it must not be confused with its own related object. For example: The correct reason of not observing the pervasive cause is established as related to the property of the reason, because the reason related to the property of the correct reason is established. The third is: In general, if subsequent valid cognition is valid, then for the visible phenomena, all things that are hidden from you should not exist, because things that are hidden from you are not seen by direct perception. For example, like the objects of the afterlife. If this is not established, because things that are now hidden will be seen by sensory perception at other times. For the visible phenomena, even at other times, not all hidden things are seen by sensory perception, because even at other times, the materiality of the senses and the ability of the cause to produce the effect are not seen by direct perception. If because of this they do not exist, then sensory consciousness and the production of effects would become without cause, because the materiality of the senses and the ability of the cause to produce the effect do not exist. The fourth is: All. Valid cognition can be established as two types, direct perception and inference, because there is valid cognition that understands the self-character through being separated from concepts, and valid cognition that understands the self-character through grasping the general character with concepts. The second is to refute the wrong views of the majority, which is divided into two parts: stating the two wrong views together, and explaining the refuting reasons separately. The first part is: Measure. The logician says: Valid cognition, you will not understand impermanent color as impermanent, because you determine the measurable as two types, self and general. This is universal, because impermanent color is a mixture of self and general. Therefore, the mind that understands impermanent color will become a valid cognition other than direct perception and inference, because any valid cognition that grasps the general characteristic does not depend on signs. Special. The analyst says: The mind of recognition that sees the difference is a valid cognition other than direct perception and inference, because the direct perception that depends on signs is different. Because the sign has no relation to its object of application, it is also not an inference. Other. Therefore, there are one and three types of valid cognition.
Tibetan
་ལ་སོགས་པའི་གྲངས་ངེས་སེལ་བར་མི་འགྱུར་ཏེ། གཞལ་བྱ་རང་སྤྱི་གཉིས་ལས་མང་བ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང་། གཞལ་བྱ་གཅིག་ལ་ཡང་ཚད་མ་མངོན་རྗེས་གཉིས་ཀ་འཇུག་པ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར། དཔེར་ན་ཁྱད་པར་མཐོང་བ་ངོ་ཤེས་ཀྱི་བློ་བཞིན། གཏན་ཚིགས་སྔ་མ་གྲུབ་སྟེ། རང་སྤྱི་འདྲེས་པའི་གཞལ་བྱ་ཡོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། གཉིས་པ་ལ་གཉིས་ཏེ། འདྲེས་པ་འཛིན་པ་གཞན་དུ་འགྱུར་བ་སྤང་། ཁྱད་པར་མཐོང་བ་གཞན་དུ་འགྱུར་སྤང་བའོ། །དང་པོ་ལ་བཞི་སྟེ། རྟགས་ལས་རྟོགས་པ་སྤྱི་འཛིན་རྗེས་དཔག་ཡིན། རྗེས་ཀྱིས་ངེས་པར་རྟོགས་པ་ཚད་མ་མིན། ཞིག་འཇིག་གཅིག་པའི་ལུགས་ལའང་རྗེས་དཔག་ཡིན། ཞར་ལ་གཞན་སྡེའི་མི་རྟག་འདོད་ཚུལ་དགག་པའོ། །དང་པོ་ལ་གསུམ་སྟེ། དངོས་དོན་མདོར་བསྟན། ཞར་བྱུང་རྒྱས་པར་བཤད། དཀྱུས་མའི་མཇུག་བསྡུ་བའོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། སྐྱོནཾ། ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་ངེས་པའི་ཚད་མ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁ་དོག་རང་མཚན་ལ་མི་རྟག་པའི་སྤྱི་སྦྱར་ནས་དངོས་ཡུལ་དུ་བྱེད་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་གྱིས་རང་སྤྱིའི་འདྲེས་པ་འཛིན་པའི་ཚད་མ་མིན་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་ཁ་དོག་གི་སྤྱི་ལ་མི་རྟག་པའི་སྤྱི་སྦྱར་བ་དངོས་ཡུལ་བྱེད་པའི་བློ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཉིས་པ་ལ་གསུམ་སྟེ། སྤྱི་ལ་སྦྱར་ཡང་དངོས་པོའི་ཆོས་སུ་གྲུབ། གཞན་ལ་སྦྱར་ཡང་འབྲེལ་པས་བསླུ་བ་མེད། འབྲེལ་པས་བསླུ་བ་མེད་ཚུལ་རྒྱས་པར་བཤད་པའོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། འོ་ན་མི་རྟག་པ་དེ་དངོས་མེད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་སུ་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། དངོཾས། མི་རྟག་པ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་དངོས་མེད་ཀྱི་ཆོས་མིན་ཏེ། སེལ་ངོར་ཁ་དོག་དེ་ཁྱོད་དུ་གྲུབ་པའི་དོན་ལ་ཁ་དོག་རང་མཚན་པ་དེ་ཁྱོད་དུ་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཉིས་པ་ནི། གཞནཾ། སེལ་ངོར་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་གྲུབ་པས་དོན་ལ་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་གྲུབ་པ་མིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། དེ་གཉིས་གཞན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་ངེས་པའི་ཚད་མ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ཀྱིས་སེལ་ངོར་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་དངོས་སུ་གྲུབ་པས་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་མི་འགྲུབ་པ་མིན་ཏེ། ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་དངོས་ཡུལ་དུ་གྱུར་པའི་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པའི་སྤྱི་དེ་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་རང་མཚན་ལ་བརྒྱུད་ནས་འབྲེལ་བ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར། གསུམ་པ་ལ་གཉིས་ཏེ། སྒྲུབ་པའི་རྗེས་དཔག་འབྲེལ་པས་བསླུ་བ་མེད། དགག་པའི་རྗེས་དཔག་འབྲེལ་པས་བསླུ་བ་མེད་པའོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། དངོསཾ། བྱས་པའི་རྟགས་ལས་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་རྟོགས་པའི་རྗེས་དཔག་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ཁ་དོག་མི་རྟག་པ་རང་མཚན་ལ་བརྒྱུད་ནས་འབྲེལ་ཏེ། ཁྱོད་བྱས་པའི་རྟགས་ཀྱིས
Chinese
等等的數量確定消除是不會改變的，因為所量事物比自共相二者還多，並且，對於一個所量事物，現量和比量二者都能適用。例如，如同見到差別而認識的智慧。前述的理由成立，因為有自共相混合的所量事物。如果這樣說。第二個分為二：捨棄執著混合的事物轉變為其他，捨棄見到差別而轉變為其他。第一個分為四：從標誌所理解的是執持共相的比量。以比量來確定理解不是量。在認為壞滅和存在是一體的宗派中也是比量。順便駁斥其他宗派所主張的無常觀點。第一個分為三：真實意義簡要地顯示。順便詳細地解釋。一般的總結。第一個是：過失。以量來確定顏色是無常的，法。因為將顏色的自相和無常的共相結合，作為實物的理由，所以不是執持自共相混合的量。因為你是將顏色的共相和無常的共相結合，作為實物的智慧。第二個分為三：即使加在共相上，也成立為事物的法。即使加在其他上，也不會被關係所欺騙。詳細地解釋不會被關係所欺騙的方式。第一個是：如果這樣。那麼無常會變成非事物的法嗎？真實。無常，法。你不是非事物的法，因為在遮遣方面，顏色成立為你的意義是，顏色的自相成立為你。第二個是：其他。因為在遮遣方面，顏色成立為無常，所以顏色不成立為無常，因為這二者是其他。如果這樣說。以量來確定顏色是無常的，法。你因為在遮遣方面，顏色實際成立為無常，所以顏色不是不成立，因為你的實物所變成的顏色的無常的共相，透過顏色無常的自相而成立關係。第三個分為二：成立的比量不會被關係所欺騙。破斥的比量不會被關係所欺騙。第一個是：真實。從所作的標誌來理解顏色是無常的比量，法。你透過顏色無常的自相而產生關係，因為你透過所作的標誌。
English
The determination of numbers such as these will not change, because there are more than just the two, self and general, to be measured, and because both direct perception and inference can apply to a single object to be measured. For example, like the wisdom of recognizing by seeing differences. The previous reason is established, because there are objects to be measured that are a mixture of self and general. If you say that. The second is divided into two: abandoning the holding of mixed things that change into something else, abandoning the seeing of differences that change into something else. The first is divided into four: what is understood from the sign is the inference that holds the general. What is definitely understood by inference is not a valid cognition. In the system that considers destruction and existence as one, it is also inference. Incidentally, refuting the views of other schools on impermanence. The first is divided into three: briefly stating the actual meaning. Explaining in detail what arises incidentally. Concluding the ordinary. The first is: fault. The valid cognition that determines color to be impermanent, subject. Because the reason for combining the self-characteristic of color with the generality of impermanence and making it an object is not a valid cognition that holds the mixture of self and general. Because you are the mind that combines the generality of color with the generality of impermanence and makes it an object. The second is divided into three: even if applied to the general, it is established as a property of things. Even if applied to others, there is no deception by relation. Explaining in detail how there is no deception by relation. The first is: if so. Then will impermanence become a property of non-things? Reality. Impermanence, subject. You are not a property of non-things, because in terms of negation, the meaning of color being established as you is that the self-characteristic of color is established as you. The second is: other. Because in terms of negation, color is established as impermanent, therefore color is not established as impermanent, because these two are other. If you say that. The valid cognition that determines color to be impermanent, subject. Because you actually establish color as impermanent in terms of negation, therefore color is not not established, because the generality of the impermanence of color that has become your object is established in relation through the self-characteristic of the impermanence of color. The third is divided into two: the establishing inference is not deceived by relation. The refuting inference is not deceived by relation. The first is: reality. The inference that understands color to be impermanent from the sign of being made, subject. You are related through the self-characteristic of the impermanence of color, because you are through the sign of being made.