Chinese
由于揭示了颠倒之义，事物将从他者产生，并且产生将成为具有果实之自体，并且产生将成为有贪著，因此与成立之宗相违背。从这些过失的指责出发，他仅仅以自宗自续的理证来成立。对此，论师月称说，如果你以自续的理由和不举例等方式来指责那些过失，那么圣天（佛护）的宗派就无法成立，因为以他宗的颠倒分别念遣除，所以不需要自续，否则，自续也无法遣除，因此自续没有能力，并且那时在所立宗共同显现的基础上，由于没有承诺特殊性质，因此自续本身就不合理。通过这些方式驳斥后，他建立了仅仅以他宗成立的宗派的论典。这些将在下面金刚屑的章节中详细解释，因此这里不再赘述。造《入行论》释的扎亚阿难陀也说，这里他宗的定义是，通过他人承诺的方式，向他人展示不希望的结果。例如，如果他人承诺事物具有从自性产生的性质，那么芽等就不会产生。像这样，表达不希望的结果就是他宗。对此，有些人说，如果他宗被认为是理由，那么它是通过量成立的吗？或者是不成立的？对此，如果按照第一种情况，那么那时对双方来说都是成立的，那么怎么说“他人承诺”呢？如果按照第二种情况，那么它是不应该被他人承诺的，那么怎么说“他人承诺”呢？对此的回答是，通过量成立的那个对双方来说都是成立的，这我并不理解。像这样，在立论者陈述能立的时候，他所安立的理由是通过量成立的吗？他怎么知道对他人来说是通过量成立的呢？因为他人的心识的差别不是现量和比量的对境。对自己来说，又怎么知道是通过量成立的呢？因为由于错乱的原因，从长久以来就存在欺骗的可能性。
English
Because it reveals the meaning of reversal, things will arise from others, and arising will become the very self with fruit, and arising will become with attachment, therefore it contradicts the established tenet. Starting from the accusation of these faults, he establishes it solely with the reasoning of one's own system and own continuum. To this, the teacher Chandrakirti said, if you accuse those faults by means of one's own continuum's reason and not giving examples, etc., then the system of Buddhapalita will not be able to be established as unreasonable, because by refuting the other's wrong conceptions with consequences, there is no need for one's own continuum, otherwise, one's own continuum will also not be able to refute, therefore one's own continuum has no ability, and at that time, on the basis of the subject being established as a common appearance, because the special characteristic is not promised, therefore one's own continuum itself is unreasonable. Having refuted through these methods, he established the treatise of establishing the tenet solely with consequences. These will be explained in detail below in the chapter on Vajra Splinters, so I will not elaborate here. Jaya Ananta, who composed the commentary on the Entering, also said here that the definition of consequence is that which shows the undesirable to others through the way of others' acceptance. For example, if others accept that things have the characteristic of arising from themselves, then sprouts and so on will not arise. Like that, expressing the undesirable is like a consequence. To this, some say, if consequences are considered as reasons, then is it established by valid cognition, or is it not established? To this, if according to the first case, then at that time it is established for both, so how can it be said "promised by others"? If according to the second case, then it is not appropriate to be promised by others, so how can it be said "promised by others"? The answer to this is, that which is established by valid cognition is established for both, that I do not understand. Like this, at the time when the proponent states the proof, is the reason that he establishes established by valid cognition? How does he know that it is established by valid cognition for others? Because the differences in the minds of others are not the objects of direct perception and inference. How does one know that it is established by valid cognition for oneself? Because due to the cause of confusion, there is a possibility of deception since it has been long.