English
It is said, "The manifest and the unrefuted to be manifested." Regarding its meaning, some consider that the five dharmas, such as the meaning of the essence, are complete, and that the characteristic of the authentic object to be accomplished for the benefit of others is not reasonable. Because it does not have the meaning of what is to be shown. If what is to be shown is not related to the subject, then the word "to think" can cut off the example that is not established as the authentic object to be accomplished, so the word "only" has no need for distinction and complete cutting off. Therefore, what is to be shown through the completeness of the five dharmas such as the meaning of the essence is the characteristic of the authentic object to be accomplished for the benefit of others, which is explicitly shown in the sutra. In the gate of reasoning, it is said that whatever is to be accomplished is considered to be what is to be accepted, and what is not refuted by the contradictory meaning is also a side. Regarding its meaning, some say that the meaning of the collection of dharmas and subjects promised by the opponent's wise man is not reasonable. Because the unrefuted is actually said, it is incomplete. Otherwise, the eyes and other things that do things for their own benefit are the subject, and it should be what is meant, because of that characteristic. Therefore, the opponent's wise man means that whatever is the meaning of the collection of dharmas and subjects that are desired to be established, and that is not refuted by the measure, is the meaning of that theory. It also shows the meaning of the essence of the aggregate with the words "what should be accomplished." The words "has been established as acceptance" show the meaning of the desire and self-nature of the aggregate. The unrefuted is actually there. The word "only" does not need to be mentioned here, because it is not related to what is to be shown, so the word "to think" can cut off the example that is not established as the object to be accomplished. In the aggregate, it is necessary to say "only" in order to cut off the example that is not established as the object to be accomplished. The desire of the aggregate is related to what is to be shown, so it can guide in the future, so it will become acceptance, and this also exists in the example that can become the object to be accomplished in the future but is not established. If it is said that there is no need to say what is to be shown, if it is not said, then only does not need to be said, so there is the merit of few words. In response, some say that it is to cater to the characteristic of the object to be established in the self-tradition of the non-Buddhist, because the logician considers what is to be established to be what is to be shown, so it is consistent with the characteristic accepted by the self-tradition.
Chinese
他们说，因为会以卑慢之心而进入。另一些人说，由于“极明”一词以正确的论证方式没有直接陈述宗，那么，它难道不是应该被指出的吗？回答是，它是应该被指出的。如何指出呢？他们说，意思是说通过自性等五法的方式来指出。自宗的观点是，这里的“指出”的定义是以成办他义为前提的，所以意思是前派对后派指出。如果正确的成办他义会变成两个不同的所诠，因为它有两个不同的定义，分别由两个论典所说，那该怎么办？对此，一些人回答说，《摄类学》中所说的是正确的成办他义的定义，而《理门论》中所说的是正确的他义宗的定义，所以没有过失。这种说法是不合理的，因为《摄类学》中所说的也是他义宗的定义，因为经中说：“因聚是定义所明，不待周遍且遣除，相违即是说宗之定义。”因此，如果存在两个不同的意义反体，那么所诠就会变成两个，但仅仅存在两个不同的自反体，所诠不会变成两个，因为即使自反体不同，也存在意义反体处于同一状态的情况。因此，应该知道两个论典中所说的两个定义都是成办他义和正确宗的定义，因为它们两个的意义反体是相同的。例如，不欺骗的意识和不认识的显现两者都是量和正确意识的定义一样。那么，两个论典中出现两种不同表达方式的原因是什么呢？《摄类学》是从遣除邪分别的角度出发，详细地阐述了定义的各个方面，而《理门论》是从遣除不同类别的角度出发，简略地阐述了定义的各个方面。第二，有些人认为法和有法自相的集合是所立宗的体性基础，这是不合理的，因为不能直接对自相进行破立。有些人认为声音和意义的集合是所立宗的体性基础，这也是不合理的，因为仅仅对声音和意义进行破
English
They say that it will enter with a humble mind. Some say that since the word "very clear" does not directly state the subject in the correct argumentative way, then, is it not something that should be pointed out? The answer is that it is something that should be pointed out. How is it pointed out? They say that it means pointing out through the five dharmas such as self-nature. The self-view is that the definition of "pointing out" here is based on the premise of accomplishing the meaning for others, so it means that the former proponent points out to the latter opponent. If the correct accomplishment of the meaning for others will become two different signifieds, because it has two different definitions, which are said by two treatises, what should be done? To this, some people answer that what is said in the Compendium is the definition of the correct accomplishment of the meaning for others, and what is said in the Reasoning Door is the definition of the correct subject of the meaning for others, so there is no fault. This statement is unreasonable, because what is said in the Compendium is also the definition of the subject of the meaning for others, because it is said in the sutra: "The collection of causes is what is clarified by the definition, without waiting for pervasiveness and eliminating, contradiction is the definition of the subject." Therefore, if there are two different meaning-reversals, then the signified will become two, but merely having two different self-reversals, the signified will not become two, because even if the self-reversals are different, there are cases where the meaning-reversal is in the same state. Therefore, it should be known that the two definitions said in the two treatises are both the definitions of accomplishing the meaning for others and the correct subject, because the meaning-reversals of the two are the same. For example, the non-deceptive consciousness and the manifestation of the unknown are both the definitions of valid cognition and correct consciousness. Then, what is the reason for the appearance of two different expressions in the two treatises? The Compendium explains the various aspects of the definition in detail from the perspective of eliminating wrong discriminations, while the Reasoning Door explains the various aspects of the definition briefly from the perspective of eliminating different categories. Second, some people think that the collection of the self-characteristics of dharma and dharmas is the basis of the nature of the established subject, which is unreasonable, because one cannot directly establish or refute the self-characteristics. Some people think that the collection of sound and meaning is the basis of the nature of the established subject, which is also unreasonable, because merely refuting
Tibetan
མཚན་རྟོགས་པར་མི་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར། དེས་ན་ཆོས་དང་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒྲ་དོན་གྱི་ཚོགས་དོན་ལ་རང་མཚན་དུ་འཁྲུལ་པ་བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་མཚན་གཞི་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་དགག་སྒྲུབ་བྱས་པས་རང་མཚན་རྟོགས་པར་འགྱུར་བའི་ཕྱིར། གསུམ་པ་ལ་གཉིས་ཏེ། རྣམ་གཞག་སྤྱིར་བསྟན་པ་དང་། མ་བསལ་བ་བྱེ་བྲག་ཏུ་བཤད་པའོ། །དང་པོ་ལ་བདུན་ཏེ། མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ངོ་བོ་ངོས་གཟུང་བ། ཚིག་ལྔའི་རྣམ་བཅད་དང་ཡོངས་གཅོད་ཀྱི་དགོས་པ། ཚིག་ལྔའི་གྲངས་ངེས། གོ་རིམ་ངེས་པ། རྒོལ་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་གང་གི་དབང་དུ་བྱས་དཔྱད། འདོད་པ་དང་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར། འདིར་མ་བསལ་བ་དངོས་སུ་མི་སྟོན་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ནོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། ངོ་བོའི་དོན་ནི་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་གྱིས་མ་གྲུབ་པས་བསྒྲུབ་པར་བྱ་དགོས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ནོ། །ཁོ་ནའི་དོན་ནི་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ནང་ནས་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དུ་བཀོད་བཞིན་པ་མ་ཡིན་པར་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ཁོ་ན་ཡིན་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ནོ། །རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་དོན་རྒོལ་བ་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་བསྒྲུབ་བྱར་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདོད་པའི་དོན་ནི་ངག་ཏུ་དངོས་སུ་མ་སྨོས་ཀྱང་ཞེ་བས་བསྒྲུབ་བྱར་འདོད་པ་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ཡིན་ནོ། །མ་བསལ་བའི་དོན་ནི་ཚད་མ་བཞི་ཀས་མ་བཀག་པ་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ནོ། །གཉིས་པ་ནི། ངོ་བོ་ཞེས་པའི་ཚིག་དེས་རྣམ་བཅད་ལ་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་གྱིས་སྒྲུབ་ཟིན་པ་གཞན་དོན་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ཡང་དག་ཡིན་པ་བཅད་ནས་ཡོངས་གཅོད་ལ་གཞན་དོན་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ཡང་དག་ཡིན་ན། དེས་མ་གྲུབ་པ་གཅིག་དགོས་པར་བསྟན་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཁོ་ན་ཞེས་པའི་ཚིག་དེས་རྣམ་བཅད་ལ་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དེ་ཡིན་པ་བཅད་ནས་ཡོངས་གཅོད་ལ་དེ་ཡིན་ན། བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ནང་ནས་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དུ་བཀོད་བཞིན་པ་མ་ཡིན་པར་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་ཁོ་ན་ཡིན་དགོས་པར་བསྟན་ནོ། །རང་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྒྲའི་དགོས་པ་ལ། རང་ལུགས་གཞག་པ་དང་། གཞན་ལུགས་དགག་པ་གཉིས་ལས། དང་པོ་ནི། རྣམ་བཅད་ལ་རྒོལ་བས་ཁས་མ་བླངས་པའི་ལུང་དོན་ཐམས་ཅད་དེ་ཡིན་པ་བཅད་ནས་ཡོངས་གཅོད་ལ་དེ་ཡིན་ན། རྒོལ་བ་རང་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ཅིག་དགོས་པར་བསྟན་ནོ། །གཉིས་པ་ནི། ཕྱོགས་གླང་གི་སློབ་མ་ཁ་ཅིག་ན་རེ། རྒོལ་བ་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལ་འདོད་པ་ཙམ་གྱིས་འཇུག་ལྡོག་བྱེད་པ་ཤེས་པའི་ཆེད་དུ་རང་སྒྲ་སྨོས་པར་འདོད་པ་མི་འཐད་དེ། རྒོལ་བ་མཁས་པས་བསྟན་བཅོས་ལ་འདོད་པ་ཙམ་གྱིས་དེ་བྱེད་པ་ཡང་མ་ཡིན། རྒོལ་བ་རྨོངས་པས་དེ་བྱེད་པ་ཡང་མིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཁ་ཅིག་ན་རེ། རྒོལ་ཕྱིར་རྒོལ་
Chinese
为了不认识自相。 因此，将法与有法之词义集合误认为自相，是所立宗的依据。因为对其进行破立，就能认识自相。 第三部分分为两点：总的阐述分类和分别解释未遮除。 第一部分分为七点：确定定义的体性，五词的辨别和断除的必要，五词的数量确定，次第确定，考察立论者和对方立论者以谁为主，意乐和自己的差别，以及此处不直接显示未遮除的原因。 第一点是：体性的意义是指对方立论者没有成立，因此必须成立的体性之义。 “唯”的意义是指在所立和能立二者之中，不是作为能立而安立，而是仅仅作为所立之义。 “自己”的意义是指立论者自己承诺作为所立之义。 “意乐”的意义是指口头上没有直接说，但心中意欲作为所立之义。 “未遮除”的意义是指没有被四量所遮止之义。 第二点是：体性这个词，在辨别上，断除了对方立论者已经成立的其他所立真实，在断除上，如果是其他所立真实，则必须有一个没有成立的，这是为了说明这一点。 “唯”这个词，在辨别上，断除了没有成立的能立是那个，在断除上，如果是那个，则必须说明在所立和能立二者之中，不是作为能立而安立，而是仅仅作为所立。 “自己”这个词的必要分为了，建立自宗和破斥他宗两种，第一点是：在辨别上，断除了立论者没有承诺的所有经文意义是那个，在断除上，如果是那个，则必须说明立论者自己承诺的。 第二点是：有些陈那的弟子说，为了知道立论者仅仅因为喜欢论典而进行取舍，而说“自”是不合理的，因为聪明的立论者也不会仅仅因为喜欢论典而这样做，愚笨的立论者也不会这样做。有些人说：立论者和对方立论者
English
Therefore, mistaking the collection of words and meanings of dharma and dharmins as self-characteristics is the basis for establishing the thesis. Because by refuting and establishing it, one can recognize self-characteristics. The third part is divided into two points: generally explaining the classification and separately explaining what is not excluded. The first part is divided into seven points: determining the nature of the definition, the necessity of distinguishing and eliminating the five words, determining the number of the five words, determining the order, examining which of the proponent and opponent is the main one, the difference between intention and oneself, and the reason why what is not excluded is not directly shown here. The first point is: The meaning of "nature" refers to the nature that the opponent has not established, so it must be established. The meaning of "only" refers to not being established as the reason among the thesis and the reason, but only as the thesis. The meaning of "self" refers to the proponent himself promising to be the thesis. The meaning of "intention" refers to the meaning of intending to be the thesis in the heart even though it is not directly stated in words. The meaning of "unexcluded" refers to the meaning of not being prevented by the four valid cognitions. The second point is: The word "nature", in distinction, eliminates other established true theses of the opponent, and in elimination, if it is another true thesis, then there must be one that is not established, which is to explain this point. The word "only", in distinction, eliminates that the unestablished reason is that, and in elimination, if it is that, then it must be explained that among the thesis and the reason, it is not established as the reason, but only as the thesis. The necessity of the word "self" is divided into establishing one's own system and refuting other systems. The first point is: in distinction, it eliminates that all the meanings of the scriptures that the proponent has not promised are that, and in elimination, if it is that, then it must be explained that the proponent himself has promised. The second point is: Some disciples of Dignāga say that it is unreasonable to say "self" in order to know that the proponent only takes and abandons because he likes the scriptures, because a wise proponent would not do this just because he likes the scriptures, and a foolish proponent would not do this either. Some say: the proponent and the opponent