Chinese
以无有遮破之方式，必定成立，周遍于何者？彼一切皆为正确之成立标志之故。于前者，应成。遮破本身即于一切时，由不现而成办。如是说之故。 कुछ 认为，彼处有成立标志与遮破标志二者，其中第一者为，瓶子清净之处，法，可称为无瓶，以瓶子未被量成立所见之故。第二者为，彼，法，无瓶，以瓶子未被量成立所见之故。若如是说，则此于关联对境不现之其他三种理由亦相同，如无火之夜晚海洋处，法，可称为无烟，以无火之故，如是二者存在之故。如是，于其他者亦可类推。鱼族说，于此，有从行为之门与作者之门安立二者，其中第一者为，瓶子清净之地方，法，可称为无瓶，以瓶子未被量成立所见之故。第二者为，清净执持根识之现量，法，为可生起必定无瓶之称谓，以是执持瓶子清净之地方之量之故。如是认为是不合理的，安立之时，如前者般安立，于最终所达之程度而言，是如后者般进行之义，并非于安立之程度而言，有二者之故。第二者为，于虽见对境之反体，然不能忆念名言之极愚昧之论敌前安立，彼乃极愚昧之义。如是云：“彼乃极愚昧之义。”以及“境虽存在然愚昧故，于此，其他者不随说，从成立与法相同，唯有忆念名言。”以及《理智宝藏》中云：“于愚昧者，须有忆念名言之称谓成立之后立。”故。第三者为，所有自性不现之理由，于安立之程度而言，虽为遮破标志，然最终皆包含于自性之理由中，最终，从圆满因集合数量之标志，可成立生果之理由中包含之故。以从因成立果故，于此，包含于自性中之故。如是说之故。彼为何如？答：即是先前从作者之角度安立之彼者。如今一切皆一致地遵循正
English
Which is pervasive in that it is definitely established without any refutation? All of that is because it is a valid proof mark. In the former, it follows. Refutation itself is always accomplished by non-apprehension. Because it is said. Some say that there are two types of proof marks and negation marks. The first is: the place of pure vases, the subject, can be called without a vase, because the vase is not perceived by valid cognition. The second is: that, the subject, is without a vase, because the vase is not perceived by valid cognition. If so, this is also the same for the other three reasons for non-apprehension of related objects, such as the ocean at night without fire, the subject, can be called without smoke, because there is no fire. Similarly, it can be applied to others as well. Nyawon says that there are two ways to establish this: from the perspective of action and from the perspective of the agent. The first is: the place of pure vases, the subject, can be called without a vase, because the vase is not perceived by valid cognition. The second is: the direct perception of the pure-grasping sense power, the subject, can generate the term "definitely without a vase," because it is the valid cognition that grasps the place of pure vases. It is not reasonable to think that way, because when establishing, it is like the former, and in the end, it means that it goes like the latter, but it is not that there are two ways to establish it. The second is that it is established in front of an opponent who is very ignorant and cannot remember the terms even though he sees the opposite of the object. That is a very ignorant meaning. As it is said, "That is a very ignorant meaning." And, "Even though the object exists, because of ignorance, others do not follow here. From the establishment and the similarity of the Dharma, only the remembrance of terms." And in the Treasure of Reasoning, it is said, "For the ignorant, there must be a post-inference that establishes the term of remembrance." Therefore. The third is that all reasons for non-apprehension of nature are negation marks in terms of establishment, but in the end, they are included in the reason of nature, because in the end, from the mark of the complete number of causal aggregates, it is included in the reason for establishing the possibility of producing results. Because the result is established from the cause, here it is included in the nature. Because it is said. What is that like? It is the same as the previous establishment from the perspective of the agent. Nowadays, everyone follows the scriptures in the same way.