Chinese
如是否为无遮破，是否为理证等。以直接相违来区分反体，即为无遮破，如所知之反体，以及非理证和已作之理证等。非已作即为已作之反体，如无常之反体等。如是说。第二，这些并非是法称论师的观点，因为烟与火相违，以及已作之反体与无常之反体相违。因为它们具备相违之总相，以及支分互相排斥相违之特征。若许，则烟既能遮止火，又能成立火，以及已作既能遮止无常，又能成立无常，均成过失。因为二者在它们那里是相违和关联的共同基础。若不遍，则以相违作为理由来遮止相违之对立面，以及以关联作为理由来成立关联之处的论式，均成不合理。以烟为有法，应成为火之损害者，因为与火相违。是遍的。在《释量论》中说：“因此，唯一损害所要成立者，即是相违。”因为如是宣说。认为俱不生相违是互相排斥相违之支分，也不合理，因为二者所安住之处和作用各不相同。俱不生相违是安住在相违双方都以实物存在之处，作用是遮止相违之存在。互相排斥相违是安住在相违双方任何一方不以实物存在之处，作用是遮止是相违。认为俱不生相违是互相损害者，也不合理，因为我执应成为证悟无我之智慧的损害者。对于间接相违，没有以直接相违来区分的情况，也不合理，因为安立为间接相违依赖于直接相违。第二，建立自宗，即一切所知都包含在一体和异体二者之中。其中，在第一者上无法安立相违，在第二者上，有本体一而反体异，遮止一之异体，以及体性各异三种。其中，在第一者上，由于安立一体之关系，故不可能有相违。在第二者上，安立互相排斥相违。在第三者上，有损害者和被损害者，以及利益者和被利益
English
Such as whether it is a non-affirming negation or not, whether it is a reason or not, and so on. What is distinguished from the opposite by direct contradiction is a non-affirming negation, such as the opposite of knowable, as well as non-reason and the reason of what is made. What is not made is the opposite of what is made, such as the opposite of impermanence, and so on. Thus it is said. Secondly, these are not the views of Dharmakirti, because smoke is contradictory to fire, and the opposite of what is made is contradictory to the opposite of impermanence. Because they possess the general characteristic of contradiction, as well as the characteristic of mutually exclusive contradiction as a specific division. If asserted, then smoke would be able to both prevent fire and establish fire, and what is made would be able to both prevent impermanence and establish impermanence, both would be fallacious. Because the two are the common basis of contradiction and relation in them. If not pervasive, then it would be unreasonable to use contradiction as a reason to prevent the opposite of contradiction, and to use relation as a reason to establish the place of relation. Smoke, the subject, should be the harmer of fire, because it is contradictory to fire. It is pervasive. In the Pramāṇavārttika, it is said, "Therefore, only what harms what is to be established is contradiction." Because it is so stated. It is also unreasonable to consider mutually exclusive contradiction as a division of mutually exclusive contradiction, because the place and function of the two are different. Mutually exclusive contradiction resides in the place where both contradictory parties exist as entities, and the function is to prevent the existence of contradiction. Mutually exclusive contradiction resides in the place where either of the contradictory parties does not exist as an entity, and the function is to prevent being contradictory. It is also unreasonable to consider mutually exclusive contradiction as mutually harmful, because self-grasping should be the harmer of the wisdom of realizing selflessness. It is also unreasonable that there is no distinction between indirect contradiction and direct contradiction, because establishing as indirect contradiction depends on direct contradiction. Secondly, establishing one's own system, that is, all knowable things are included in one and different. Among them, contradiction cannot be established on the first, and on the second, there are three types: one essence with different opposites, different opposites that prevent one, and different entities. Among them, on the first, since the relationship of one essence is established, there can be no contradiction. On the second, mutually exclusive contradiction is established. On the third, there are harmer and harmed, as well as benefactor and benefited.