Chinese
对此，其他人说：这不合理，因为那个衡量的新颖性不完整。这样说是与自宗相矛盾的，因为“量是不欺骗的知识”这句话没有完全显示量的定义。因为它没有显示量之意义的关键——新颖性。如果承认，那就与他承认的法称自宗的量的完整定义相矛盾了。世尊种姓说：也不是反复的知识，如无尽的改变、记忆等。依靠这句话，说不了解的事物显现是量的定义。依靠“可信之语是不欺骗的，从共相中推测”这句话，说不欺骗的知识是量的定义，这样说是不合理的。因为前面的论典只是暗示了先前不了解的事物新颖地被了解，但实际上并没有得出先前不了解的事物新颖地被了解。因此，在这里，将先前不了解的事物新颖地被了解作为量的定义来明确论证，是为了确定论典的意义。因为（经文说）：不了解自己的定义，是什么样的知识？否则，不了解的事物显现应该先被指出，然后不欺骗的知识应该在之后显示，因为两个量经的论典是按照那个顺序出现的。第二，自宗是：不欺骗，不了解的事物显现这二者，在证悟自相上意义一致。在世俗谛和胜义谛，两者都适用。不欺骗具有业、作者和行为三者的自性。在解释所说意义时，解释前后两个论典的意图，解释不欺骗的意义，因此不需要添加其他词语，分为这三点。第一点是：通过“量是不欺骗的知识”这句话，显示了作为所有量经论典意图的量的意义。在量经中，在解释量的数量确定时，也说不欺骗的知识属于量的数量确定范畴，而欺骗的知识不属于该范畴。在现量的情况下，也以无分别的知识为基础，将不欺骗的知识解释为正确的现量，而将欺骗的知识解释为相似现量。以及两种比量。
English
To this, others say: This is unreasonable, because that measure of novelty is incomplete. To say this is contradictory to one's own system, because the statement "A valid cognition is a non-deceptive knowledge" does not fully show the definition of a valid cognition. Because it does not show the key to the meaning of valid cognition—novelty. If you admit that, then it contradicts his admission that Dharmakīrti's own system of the complete definition of valid cognition. The Blessed One Gotra says: It is also not repeated knowledge, such as endless change, memory, etc. Relying on this sentence, it is said that the manifestation of things not understood is the definition of valid cognition. Relying on the sentence "Trustworthy words are non-deceptive, inferred from universals," it is said that non-deceptive knowledge is the definition of valid cognition, which is unreasonable. Because the previous treatise only implies that things previously not understood are newly understood, but in fact it does not lead to things previously not understood being newly understood. Therefore, here, taking the newly understood things that were not previously understood as the definition of valid cognition is to clearly demonstrate and determine the meaning of the treatise. Because (the scripture says): Not understanding one's own definition, what kind of knowledge is it? Otherwise, the manifestation of things not understood should be pointed out first, and then the non-deceptive knowledge should be shown later, because the two treatises of the Pramāṇa Sūtra appear in that order. Second, one's own system is: non-deceptive, the manifestation of things not understood, these two, are consistent in meaning in the realization of self-characteristics. In both the conventional truth and the ultimate truth, both apply. Non-deception has the nature of the three: action, agent, and object. When explaining the meaning of what is said, explain the intention of the two treatises before and after, explain the meaning of non-deception, so there is no need to add other words, divided into these three points. The first point is: Through the sentence "A valid cognition is a non-deceptive knowledge," the meaning of valid cognition, which is the intention of all Pramāṇa Sūtra treatises, is shown. In the Pramāṇa Sūtra, when explaining the determination of the number of valid cognitions, it is also said that non-deceptive knowledge belongs to the category of the determination of the number of valid cognitions, while deceptive knowledge does not belong to that category. In the case of direct perception, based on non-conceptual knowledge, non-deceptive knowledge is explained as correct direct perception, and deceptive knowledge is explained as similar direct perception. And the two inferences.