Chinese
ར། 凡以何者所诠即彼为体性，于“所知”之时，就大乘加行的体性之边际作分析时，总的来说，有分析名与所诠相违不相违，分析此处所诠之境，分析各自体性之自性，分析各论之义四者。其中第一者有破、立、舍三者。第一者：有者说，彼二相违，若为体性，则必须为能诠，若为所诠，则必须为所诠之事物。前者有遍：凡以何者所诠即彼为体性，于所知之时已说之故。后者有遍：以作用成立彼等为所诠之事物之故，如是说之故。又自性之名，彼于此处所说之体性有遍，彼二不相违之故。若许，则大乘加行彼为大乘加行之体性有遍，许彼之故。周遍：自性之名彼为所诠大乘之加行自性之故。又自性之名，法，非体性有遍，体性必须由其他所诠之法之故，如是说。于理遍第一二者，以作用成立之角度而言，若为体性，则必须为体性有遍，以作用成立彼等为所诠之事物，是故为自性之体性，如是说之故。第二者：大乘加行彼为大乘加行之所诠有遍，自性之名彼为此时所说之所诠之故。周遍承许。第三者：三智，法，于彼有遍，彼之故。若许，则圆满加行彼为非加行有遍，许彼之故。周遍：彼之体性之加行与，如是说之故。第二者：若为此时所说之大乘加行之体性，则彼与大乘加行二者，由于是能断除不遍、太遍、不可能三过者，故为不遍，总的来说，体性之语有能作成立与作用成立二者，其中若以作用成立之角度而言，则所诠亦为体性之故，自性任何所诠亦，如是与，体性许为第四，如是说之故。于诠释加行之时，于名与所诠二者，有不遍、太遍、不可能三过。
English
Regarding the examination of the limits of the characteristics of the Mahāyāna practice in the context of "what is to be known," [I will discuss] what is designated by what is a characteristic. In general, there are four [topics]: examining whether names and designata are contradictory or not, examining the object designated here, examining the nature of each characteristic, and examining the meaning of each text. The first of these has three aspects: refutation, establishment, and rejection. First, some say that the two are contradictory, because if it is a characteristic, it must be what designates, and if it is designated, it must be what is to be designated. The former has pervasion: because it is said, "what is designated by what is a characteristic." The latter has pervasion: because it is said, "by accomplishing the action, these are what are to be designated." Furthermore, the name of self-nature has pervasion as the characteristic mentioned here, because the two are not contradictory. If you accept [this], then the Mahāyāna practice has pervasion as the characteristic of the Mahāyāna practice, because you accept that. [This is] because the name of self-nature is the self-nature of the Mahāyāna practice to be designated. Furthermore, the name of self-nature, the dharma, has pervasion as not being a characteristic, because a characteristic must be designated by another dharma. So they say. Regarding the first two proofs, if it is a characteristic from the perspective of accomplishing the action, then it must be a characteristic, because it is said, "by accomplishing the action, these are what are to be designated, therefore it is the characteristic of self-nature." Second, the Mahāyāna practice has pervasion as the designatum of the Mahāyāna practice, because the name of self-nature is the designatum mentioned here. The pervasion is accepted. Third, the three knowledges, the dharma, have pervasion as being there, because of that. If you accept [this], then the fully perfected practice has pervasion as not being a practice, because you accept that. [This is] because it is said, "and the practice of that characteristic." Second, if it is the characteristic of the Mahāyāna practice mentioned here, then it can eliminate the three faults of non-pervasion, over-pervasion, and impossibility in relation to that and the Mahāyāna practice, therefore it is non-pervasive, because in general, the term "characteristic" applies to both active establishment and action establishment. Among these, if it is from the perspective of action establishment, then the designatum is also a characteristic, because it is said, "whatever self-nature is also a designatum," and "the characteristic is considered to be the fourth." When the designatum is arranged in the practice, there are the three faults of non-pervasion, over-pervasion, and impossibility in relation to the name and the designatum.