English
Because the direct perception of the eye faculty is manifest, and the conceptual thought that grasps blue is obscure. Furthermore, these two are not contradictory, because the characteristics of being manifest and obscure also depend on the conceptualizer and the present situation. If it were not so, then when the difference in the situation of the viewer and the appearance changes, the manifest and the obscure would change in other ways, therefore the characteristics would be confused, so it is said. Shakya Blo considers this to be confused, because the direct perception also becomes obscure, and the obscure also becomes manifest in another way, so it is said. Third, these two are contradictory, if it is obscure in relation to one mind, then because it is obscure, it is not pervasive, and if it is manifest in relation to one mind, then because it is manifest, it is not pervasive, otherwise, if the two, manifest and obscure, are one, then there would be the fault of necessarily being one. The views of the two commentaries also seem to be like this, because the two, manifest and obscure, are established in relation to two such cognitions in the continuum of one conceptualizer, that is, in the continuum of one conceptualizer, when there is simultaneously the inference that cognizes that there is fire in that place, and the direct perception that sees the fire in front, the fire in that place is obscure to that person, and the fire in front is manifest in relation to that person. The view of the commentary is definitely not to establish the two, manifest and obscure, in relation to one cognition, because if it were so, there would be the fault of not being able to establish either of the two, manifest and obscure.