Chinese
为了说明从意义中产生。外道认为没有前世的邪见，为了对治它，宣说了仅仅证明有因的果的理证。因为那说明了今生是苦谛，是前世集谛的果。第二，从进入方式上区分，有进入顺品的遍及的正确理证，和进入两种的正确理证两种。对此有破立两种。第一种是，有些人说，那两者的定义依次是，凡是关于它的正确理证，就是以理证遍及关于它的所立之法，和不遍及。第一种，以总相为法，所量存在，因为是量所能认识的。如果这样安立，那么它是法，关于它的能立在那里，因为是那个定义的缘故。后者成立，因为所量被量所能认识的遍及。如果主张根本，兔角为法，应该是量所能认识的，因为所量存在的缘故。第二种，瓶子为法，有事物的因，因为是事物。如果这样安立，那么它是法，关于它的后者在那里，因为是能立的缘故。不能承认，因为事物的因被事物遍及。第二种是，那两者的定义依次是，凡是正确理证，就是自己成为理证的论敌，与一切顺品相符，以安立和成立的方式确定和不确定。第一种有自性和非显现的正确理证两种。第一种是，声音为法，是无常，因为是所作，就像这样。第二种是，瓶子在量未见的显现处为法，没有瓶子，因为瓶子是量未见的，就像这样。后者有果、自、非显现的理证三种。第一种是，有烟的地方为法，有火，因为有烟，就像这样。第二种是，海螺声为法，是无常，因为是从功用中产生的，就像这样。第三种是，无火的云雾时节的海洋中为法，没有烟，因为没有火，就像这样。第三，从能立的角度区分，有事物力加入、可信、名声的正确理证三种。第一种是，之前所说
English
In order to explain that it arises from meaning. The Tirthikas hold the wrong view that there is no previous life, and in order to counteract it, they proclaim the consequential proof that merely proves the existence of a cause. Because that shows that this life is the truth of suffering, and is the result of the truth of the origin of the previous life. Secondly, distinguishing from the perspective of the way of entering, there are two types of valid signs: those that enter as pervasive in the concordant side, and those that enter in both ways. Regarding this, there are two aspects: refutation and establishment. The first is: Some say that the definitions of the two are, respectively: Any valid sign concerning it is that the reason pervades the dharma to be proven concerning it, and does not pervade. In the first case, the universal characteristic is the subject. There exists what is to be measured, because it is to be cognized by a valid cognition. When this is stated, then that is the subject. The proponent of that concerning it is there, because of that definition. The latter is established, because what is to be measured is pervaded by what is to be cognized by a valid cognition. If it is asserted as the root, then the rabbit's horn is the subject. It should be cognized by a valid cognition, because what is to be measured exists. In the second case, the pot is the subject. There is a cause of things, because it is a thing. When this is stated, then that is the subject. The latter part concerning it is there, because it is the proponent. It cannot be admitted, because the cause of things is pervaded by things. The second is: The definitions of the two are, respectively: Any valid sign is that the opponent who has become the reason for himself is certain and uncertain in accordance with the way of establishing and proving in accordance with all concordant sides. The first has two types of valid signs: nature and non-apprehension. The first is: Sound is the subject. It is impermanent, because it is produced, like that. The second is: The pot is the subject in the place of manifestation where it is not apprehended by a valid cognition. There is no pot, because the pot is not apprehended by a valid cognition, like that. The latter has three reasons: consequence, self, and non-apprehension. The first is: A place with smoke is the subject. There is fire, because there is smoke, like that. The second is: The conch sound is the subject. It is impermanent, because it arises from effort, like that. The third is: In the ocean during the cloudless season without fire, there is no smoke, because there is no fire, like that. Third, distinguishing from the perspective of the means of proof, there are three valid signs: thing-power-entering, trustworthy, and famous. The first is: Previously explained