English
Therefore, since it is suitable as a measure of energy, it is not just the view of the Sutra School. Apart from these two, no other self-tradition tenet appears in this treatise. Therefore, the directly revealed valid result is established in both the Sutra and Mind-Only schools. However, there is a difference in how external objects are regarded as measurable, and due to that power, there is also a difference in the apprehended aspect, so there is also a difference in the experience of self-awareness. This has already been explained before and will be explained again in the future. In summary, the second point is: the context of the text and the measure of energy, as well as valid cognition and its result, analysis and non-analysis, and through reliance on scripture, both the Sutra and Mind-Only schools consider this way of realizing the result to be reasonable, as I see it. There are seven points here. First, the context of the text is applied to both: it is unique to the Sutra School, and it is likely to occur from the completion of the valid result of the object until the valid result of consciousness has not arisen. This is because it is the only way to dispel doubts about the valid result of the object of the Sutra School, and there is no Mind-Only School view. If it is unique to the Mind-Only School, then the word "self-awareness" should appear below. Even though the subject of intelligence is not distinct, since the text such as "apprehended aspect" is to dispel doubts about the valid result of making the apprehended aspect measurable, there is no need to separate it with this text. Therefore, the Sutra School's view is to make external objects measurable and to make the valid result of the object the result, and the Mind-Only School's view is to make the apprehended aspect measurable and to make self-awareness the result. In terminology, external objects are measurable, and in terminology, the valid result of the object is made the result, these two (valid results) have been explained. Since this valid result appears after making the apprehended aspect measurable and making self-awareness the result, not only is self-awareness the measure of the apprehended aspect, but also for the two that have made external objects measurable, it is also based on the clinging appearance of the subsequent inferential cognition, and the valid result of the object is made the result. If analyzed by the two ways of intelligence and the reasoning for proving self-awareness that will be explained below, then the result of self-awareness is reasonable. Because this appearance at the time of the sense consciousness is the apprehended aspect that has become the nature of the consciousness itself. Therefore, by showing this, this is also established as both views. Second, the measure of energy is applied to both: the Sutra School's view is to make the hidden external object the measure of energy, and the
Chinese
關於立宗，先前已經說過，在外境於名言中是可量度的，因此這也成立了兩者的立宗。第三，將「也」字連接到兩者：連接到經部時，應連接「所取之相不僅是自證的果，也是外境的可量度」；連接到唯識時，應連接「以理智分析時，雖然沒有外境，但在名言中，即使有外境也是如此」。因此，這也成立了兩者的立宗。第四，將二量（兩種量）連接到兩者：當外境被視為可量度時，經部和唯識部都必須承認所取之相是量。前者將外境視為隱蔽的對象，因此認為由它所建立的相是量；後者在名言中將外境視為可量度，因此必須在名言中將其視為義智。而且，只有具有事物之相的所取之相才能夠確立，其他則不能。因此，這也成立了兩者的立宗。第五，將二果（兩種果）連接到兩者：分析時，自證是果，這也是經部和唯識部兩者的立宗。經部認為，當外境被視為可量度時，二法成立，而二法成立則自證成立，因為「以二法成立，則自證幾乎成立」。對於唯識部來說，由於沒有所取和能取的實體，因此分析時，自證無疑是果。因此，這也成立了兩者的立宗。第六，將分析與未分析連接到兩者：經部和唯識部都一致認為，如果不分析，根識在自身時間中顯現的是外境；如果分析，則認為是識的自性。經部認為，不了解外境隱蔽性的差別的眾生相續中的定解，也普遍地認為是外境；唯識部則認為，在習氣堅固產生的根識所引導的定解面前，根識在自身時間中顯現的是外境。而且，兩者在分析時都認為是所取之相。因此，這也成立了兩者的立宗。第七，將可信的二教證連接到兩者：先前引用的根識的對境中存在共同的
English
Regarding the establishment of tenets, it has already been explained that external objects are measurable in name, so this also establishes the tenets of both. Third, connect the word "also" to both: When connecting to the Sutra School, it should be connected as "the apprehended aspect is not only the fruit of self-awareness, but also the measurable external object"; when connecting to the Mind-Only School, it should be connected as "when analyzed by reason, although there are no external objects, in name, even if there are external objects, it is still the case." Therefore, this also establishes the tenets of both. Fourth, connect the two valid cognitions to both: When external objects are regarded as measurable, both the Sutra and Mind-Only Schools must acknowledge that the apprehended aspect is valid cognition. The former regards external objects as hidden objects, so it considers the aspect established by it to be valid cognition; the latter regards external objects as measurable in name, so it must regard it as meaning-awareness in name. Moreover, only the apprehended aspect with the aspect of things can establish it, others cannot. Therefore, this also establishes the tenets of both. Fifth, connect the two fruits to both: When analyzed, self-awareness is the fruit, which is also the tenet of both the Sutra and Mind-Only Schools. The Sutra School believes that when external objects are regarded as measurable, the two modes are established, and when the two modes are established, self-awareness is established, because "by establishing the two modes, self-awareness is almost established." For the Mind-Only School, since there is no entity of the apprehended and the apprehender, when analyzed, self-awareness is undoubtedly the fruit. Therefore, this also establishes the tenets of both. Sixth, connect analysis and non-analysis to both: Both the Sutra and Mind-Only Schools agree that if not analyzed, what appears to the sense consciousness in its own time is an external object; if analyzed, it is considered to be the nature of consciousness itself. The Sutra School believes that the definite understanding in the mindstream of a person who does not understand the difference between the hiddenness of external objects also generally believes that it is an external object; the Mind-Only School believes that in the face of the definite understanding led by the sense consciousness arising from the firm habit, what appears to the sense consciousness in its own time is an external object. Moreover, both consider it to be the apprehended aspect when analyzed. Therefore, this also establishes the tenets of both. Seventh, connect the two reliable scriptural authorities to both: The previously cited commonality in the object of sense consciousness
Chinese
关于决定的教证，以及唯识宗中名言上存在外境的教证，还有将要阐述的第二种心识方式和成立自证的论典，这些除了是否承认外境之外，都是经部和唯识宗共同的观点，这些都是直接揭示的量果，是经部和唯识宗共同观点的教证。与此相同或与彼相同都可以。通过这些也明确了两种宗派的观点。其中“与此相同”指的是与外境相同，是经部的观点。“与彼相同”，有些解释为与神不相同，有些古代人解释为与习气相同，意思相同，因为是唯识宗的观点。总之，将所有这些意义归纳起来，大自在萨迦班智达，在讲述完声闻二部和唯识宗真假四种量果之后，如此四种宗派中，学者的观点是，承认外境时是经部，知识进入内心时则接受无相。无论哪种观点，究竟上都是自证的量果。如《释量论》中说：“观察自性时，说是自证为果。”因为这样说的缘故。名言上，世俗上，如同经部一样，是境识的量果。因为境的安立是它的自性。“虽是自证，然许境识。”这样说。无论如何都是第二种心识方式。如果按照境识的观点，依赖于外境，就是说有两种方式。因为这样说的缘故，就是境的认识和心的认识两种方式。如果按照唯识宗的观点，则不依赖于外境。“因此一个有两种方式。”这样说，一个心识被无明所染污，因此有境和识两种方式。我们也是追随法称的这种方式。大部分藏人都追随说一切有部，那是因为不了解事物力量的道理。这样说的。如果有人对《量理宝藏论》的观点做其他解释，则需要指出《量理宝藏论》的根本颂和注释在哪里。那么，现在这种情况下的量果是怎样的呢？将之前的境识的两种量果的所量和量分为四种，在果的阶段，名言上外境
English
The scriptural authority on ascertainment, and the scriptural authorities in the Yogācāra school that nominally assert the existence of external objects, as well as the second mode of mind to be explained and the treatises that establish self-awareness, all of which, apart from whether or not they acknowledge external objects, are the tenets of both the Sūtra and Mind-Only schools, these are the directly revealed valid results, which become scriptural authorities for the tenets of both the Sūtra and Mind-Only schools. Whether it is similar to this or similar to that is fine. Through this, the views of both schools are clarified. "Similar to this" refers to being similar to external objects, which is the view of the Sautrāntika school. "Similar to that," some explain as being dissimilar to Īśvara, and some ancient people explain as being similar to latent impressions, the meaning is the same, because it is the view of the Yogācāra school. In short, summarizing the meaning of all of these, the great lord Sakya Paṇḍita, after explaining the four valid results of the two Śrāvakayāna schools and the true and false aspects of Mind-Only, thus, among the four philosophical schools, the scholar's view is that when acknowledging external objects, they are Sautrāntikas, and when knowledge enters the mind, they accept the absence of aspects. In either case, ultimately it is the valid result of self-awareness. As it says in the Pramāṇavārttika: "When examining one's own nature, it is said that self-awareness is the result." Because it is said so. Nominally, conventionally, like the Sautrāntikas, it is the valid result of object-awareness. Because the establishment of the object is its nature. "Although it is self-awareness, it is considered object-awareness." It is said. In any case, it is the second mode of mind. Even according to the object-awareness view, relying on external objects, it is said that there are two modes. Because it is said so, there are two modes of object-cognition and mind-cognition. According to the Yogācāra view, it does not rely on external objects. "Therefore, one has two modes." It is said that one mind is defiled by ignorance, so there are two modes of object and cognition. We also follow this mode of Dharmakīrti. Most Tibetans follow the Sarvāstivāda, but that is because they do not understand the reasoning of the power of things. It is said so. If anyone explains the meaning of the Treasury of Reasoning differently from this, they need to point out where the root verses and commentary of the Treasury of Reasoning are. So, what is the valid result in this case? The objects to be measured and the valid cognitions of the previous two valid results of object-awareness are divided into four, and in the stage of the result, nominally, external objects