Chinese
对于它的回答，有他答和他答两种。第一种是：数论派说，冷触和热触相遇时，冷触便在热触中趋于寂灭。有些犊子部的追随者说，那时是冷触的聚合关系破灭，而不是它的本体受到损害，因为冷触是常存的。胜论派说，那时冷触的微粒便转化为热触的微粒。正理论者说，二者相遇时，存在于具有间隔的空隙中，仅仅是阻止了同类后者的产生，而将之安立为互相不共存。前两种说法不合理，因为如果热触和冷触相遇后，冷触的延续存在，那么它们两个便会成为并非互相不共存的过失。第三种说法也不合理，因为与主张微尘常存相违背。第二种是：仅仅相遇并不能摧毁，因为与热触相遇的第一个冷触刹那，会产生第二个冷触刹那。也不会有成为互相不共存的过失，因为在第一个刹那相遇后，到第三个刹那，冷触的延续便会停止。第三个方面，有遮、立、舍三种。第一种是：有些人说，所断和能断二者在行圆满的三个刹那之间一同存在，到第三个刹那，所断的延续便会停止。有些人说，从现在开始，所断和能断二者会像金刚喻定一样长期相伴，这种说法不合理，因为如果延续长期一同存在，便会违背互相不共存。法胜说，冷热二者在第一个刹那相遇，在第二个刹那冷触变得无能，如果非常迅速，那么在第三个刹那冷触的延续便会停止，停止缓慢的极限是无法把握的。这种说法不合理，因为在第二个刹那冷触变得无能是不合理的，因为与热触相遇的第二个冷触刹那有可能产生同类后者。承认宗义。关于第二点，有成为事物本体的损害对治之时，和成为心识本体的损害对治之时两种。第一种是：
English
Regarding its answer, there are two types: others' answers and one's own answer. The first is: The Samkhyas say that when cold touch and hot touch meet, the cold touch tends to subside within the hot touch. Some followers of the Vatsiputriyas say that at that time, the aggregation relationship of cold touch is destroyed, but its essence is not harmed, because cold touch is permanent. The Vaisheshikas say that at that time, the particles of cold touch are transformed into particles of hot touch. The Sautrantikas say that when the two meet, they exist in the space with intervals, and they are established as mutually non-coexistent only to prevent the generation of similar subsequent ones. The first two statements are unreasonable, because if after the hot touch and cold touch meet, the continuity of cold touch exists, then the two would become the fault of not being mutually non-coexistent. The third statement is also unreasonable, because it contradicts the assertion that atoms are permanent. The second is: Merely meeting does not destroy, because the first moment of cold touch that meets with hot touch will generate the second moment of cold touch. There will also be no fault of becoming mutually non-coexistent, because after meeting in the first moment, the continuity of cold touch will cease in the third moment. In the third aspect, there are three: negation, establishment, and abandonment. The first is: Some say that the object to be abandoned and the antidote exist together between the three moments of completing the action, and in the third moment, the continuity of the object to be abandoned will cease. Some say that from now on, the object to be abandoned and the antidote will accompany each other for a long time like the Vajra-like Samadhi, which is unreasonable, because if the continuity exists together for a long time, it will contradict mutual non-coexistence. Dharmottara says that the cold and hot meet in the first moment, and in the second moment the cold touch becomes powerless. If it is very fast, then in the third moment the continuity of cold touch will cease, and the limit of slow cessation is impossible to grasp. This statement is unreasonable, because it is unreasonable for the cold touch to become powerless in the second moment, because it is possible for the second moment of cold touch that meets with hot touch to generate a similar subsequent one. The sign is admitted. Regarding the second point, there are two types: the time when the harm that has become the essence of the object is reversed, and the time when the harm that has become the essence of the mind is reversed. The first is: