Chinese
不是必须做的。为什么呢？如果灯没有被黑暗遮蔽，那么灯如何照亮呢？即使没有被照亮之物，也能成为照亮者，那么这灯即使变成像日月一样的照亮者，也是不希望的。另外，如果灯自己对自己起作用，那么黑暗也应该自己遮蔽自己。如果是那样，那么能看到瓶子等物的障碍——黑暗被遮蔽而不显现，那么瓶子等物就应该显现了。还有，他们这样认为：即使没有被照亮之物和照亮者，也有自己以自性照亮的情况。例如，像蓝色的琉璃一样，白色的玻璃会变成蓝色，就像下面的底布等依靠其他事物而变成蓝色一样。同样，不依靠其他事物的蓝色琉璃，其自性必定是蓝色，而它变成蓝色并非依靠其他因缘，而是像蓝色一样有两种情况。同样，有些情况是互相依靠的，即被照亮之物和照亮者本身也互相依靠，如色和眼识。即使被照亮之物和照亮者互相不依赖，也能以自性照亮，也能见到自证智。如果这样说，那么比喻不成立。因为那蓝色的琉璃本身并非不依赖其他事物而蓝色，而是显现为蓝色是其他因缘聚合使它变成蓝色的，并非不依赖任何因缘，自己把自己从以前不是蓝色变成后来的蓝色，因为自己对自己起作用是相违的。意义也不成立，因为灯自己照亮自己，这是通过灯以外的义理之识来了解并表达的。那么，心自己认识自己或者自己照亮自己，这是通过什么知识来了解并如此表达的呢？是知识自己了解自己照亮自己，还是有其他知识了解它？第一种说法不合理，因为这是当前要考察的对象，所以不成立。如果需要通过知识以外的知识来了解它，那么能知者将无穷无尽，而且也不可能被了解。如果时间不同，那么就无法了解过去已灭和未来所生的境。如果时间相同，那么现在互相不依赖，所以不可能了解。因此，当他缘起的识
English
It is not necessary to do. Why? If the lamp is not obscured by darkness, then how does the lamp illuminate? Even if there is nothing to be illuminated, it can become an illuminator, but even if this lamp becomes an illuminator like the sun and moon, it is not desired. Furthermore, if the lamp acts upon itself, then darkness should also obscure itself. If that were the case, then the obstacle to seeing things like pots—darkness—would be obscured and not appear, so things like pots should appear. Also, they think like this: even if there is no object to be illuminated and no illuminator, there is a case where it is illuminated by its own nature. For example, like a blue beryl, white glass turns blue, just as the underlying cloth, etc., becomes blue by relying on other things. Similarly, the blue beryl that does not rely on other things is definitely blue by its own nature, but its becoming blue does not rely on other causes and conditions; it is like blue, there are two cases. Similarly, some things rely on each other, that is, the object to be illuminated and the illuminator themselves also rely on each other, like form and eye consciousness. Even if the object to be illuminated and the illuminator do not depend on each other, they can illuminate by their own nature, and self-awareness can also be seen. If you say that, then the analogy is not established. Because that blue beryl itself is not blue without relying on other things, but appearing as blue is because other aggregates of causes and conditions made it blue. It is not that without relying on any causes and conditions, it made itself from not being blue before to being blue later, because it is contradictory for oneself to act on oneself. The meaning is also not established, because the lamp illuminates itself, this is understood and expressed by a consciousness of meaning other than the lamp. Then, what knowledge understands and expresses that the mind knows itself or illuminates itself? Is it the knowledge itself that knows that knowledge illuminates itself, or is there another knowledge that knows it? The first statement is unreasonable, because it is the object of investigation at the moment, so it is not established. If it needs to be understood by a knowledge other than knowledge itself, then the knower will be endless, and it is also impossible to be known. If the times are different, then one cannot know the realm of the past that has ceased and the future that is born. If the times are the same, then they do not depend on each other in the present, so it is impossible to know. Therefore, when the dependent nature of consciousness
Chinese
因为自己看不见，而且自己以外的其他人或任何人都看不见，所以辨别它是清晰还是不清晰是没有意义的。对于从未见过的特征基础，设定特征的属性，就像设定寡妇女儿的身体的姿态和步态是这样的，说也是没有意义的。还有，唯识宗那样，既然不能用现量来证实，就又用比量来证实自证。如果识不能自己体验自己，或者没有自证，那么以前没有体验过或不知道，后来怎么会回忆起心识呢？因为不可能产生回忆，就像没有原因的结果一样，所以就像以前体验过蓝色等境，现在回忆起来一样，以前体验过蓝色等境的有境，即蓝色执着的识，现在也有回忆，这现量怎么能成立呢？如果说现在回忆起蓝色执着的识，这不是以前蓝色执着自己体验自己或认识的果证，而是因为体验过蓝色等境，以及境与有境的关系，所以现在也会回忆起蓝色执着的识。因为在这里，与蓝色分离的蓝色执着是永远不会被观察到的。什么时候回忆起以前体验过的蓝色，那时也会产生执持它的有境，即回忆蓝色的分别念，而不是以前体验过与蓝色分离的蓝色执着。这就像老鼠的毒一样，冬天被有毒的老鼠咬伤时，只体验到肿胀，当时没有体验到毒性，但后来春天被雷声唤醒毒性时，就像最初产生了对以前与伤口一起进入自己的毒的认识一样。还有，像这样，通过修习止观，以及具备其他顺缘的人，也能看见其他人的心，所以对于非常接近的自己，为什么不清晰呢？肯定必须清晰，就像看见远处的毛发，肯定能看见近处的线一样。如果这样说，那是不一定的。因为通过密咒等成就的眼药，通过涂在眼睛上的方法，能看见地下的宝藏。
English
Since it is not seen by oneself, and neither others nor anyone else sees it apart from oneself, it is meaningless to distinguish whether it is clear or unclear. To posit the attributes of a characteristic on a basis of characteristics that has never been seen is like describing the posture and gait of a widow's daughter's body, which is meaningless to say. Furthermore, since the Mind-Only school cannot prove it with direct perception, they then try to prove the existence of self-awareness with inference. If consciousness does not experience itself or have self-awareness, then how can one later recall consciousness if one has not experienced or known it before? Because recollection cannot arise, just like a result without a cause, therefore, just as one now recalls having previously experienced objects such as blue, how can it be valid that one now also recalls the consciousness that apprehends blue, which has previously experienced objects such as blue? If you say that the recollection of the consciousness apprehending blue now is not the result of the blue apprehension having previously experienced or known itself, but that the consciousness apprehending blue is also recalled now because of the relationship between the experience of objects such as blue and the object and the object-possessor, then since the blue apprehension separate from blue is never observed here, whenever one recalls the blue that one has previously experienced, the conceptual thought of recalling the aspect of the object-possessor that apprehends it, i.e., the blue apprehension, also arises, but it is not because one has previously experienced a separate blue apprehension apart from blue. This is like mouse poison: when one is bitten by a poisonous mouse in winter, one only experiences the swelling, and one does not experience the poison at that time, but later, when the poison is awakened by the sound of thunder in spring, it is like the initial arising of the knowledge that focuses on the poison that has previously entered oneself together with the wound. Also, like this, those who have cultivated calm abiding and practice insight, etc., and who possess other conducive conditions, can see the minds of other people, so why is it not clear to oneself, who is very close? It must necessarily be clear, just as if one sees a distant hair, one will surely see a nearby thread. If you say that, it is not certain. Because of the eye medicine accomplished through secret mantras, etc., through the application of smearing it on the eyes, one can see treasures that are located underground.
Chinese
就像被遮蔽和阻碍的瓶子等，能看到遥远地方的景象，却无法看到非常近的眼药一样。对此，唯识宗的人说：如果知识本身不清晰且不明智，那么自己不清晰，也无法使其他事物清晰。如果这样，那么眼睛所见、耳朵所闻、以及意识所知的说法都将中断，因为这一切都必须依赖于清晰明智的知识才能成立，否则是不可能的。如果只是不加考察，沉溺于肤浅的快乐而说出这些话，那么在这里就不是要反驳的，因为那些是无法反驳的，而且也没有必要反驳。那么要反驳什么呢？这里是要阻止将一切痛苦之源的事物，执着为真实的。这里，解释者解释说，看见是现量，听见是来自他人，知是经由比量而成立的说法。唯识宗的虚假相论者说：如果从自己的心识之外显现的外境，如幻象般的景象，不是以外境的方式成立的，因为外境无法成立。那么，自己的心识显现为那样，不是其他，而是唯一吗？也不应认为与心识是同一的，如果是一体，那么心识成为不可分割的一体性就会崩溃。因此，就像虚空中出现发丝的幻觉一样，我们认为这仅仅是无根的显现。心识的自性是远离一切相的，像清净的水晶球一样存在，所以没有任何过失。如果你认为心识是实有的，那么，外境或现象怎么会不是其他的呢？因为你认为现象不是实有的，所以实有和非实有的共同基础是不可能的。如果因为担心那个过失而说心识也不是其他的，那么心识也会变成非实有的，因为它与非实有的现象是一体的。如果心识不是实有的，就不能成为能见者，如果你认为像幻象一样的外境虽然不是真实的，但可以被知识所见，那么同样，能见的意识虽然像幻象一样不是真实的，但也可以成为能见者。以上是基于先前反驳和此处成立的观点。如果轮回是依赖于他力的心识而成立的
English
Just as a vase, etc., that is obscured and obstructed, can see distant places, but cannot see the very close eye medicine itself. To this, the Mind-Only school says: If knowledge itself is not clear and not wise, then one's own self is not clear, and one cannot make other things clear. If that is the case, then all the terms for seeing with the eyes, hearing with the ears, and knowing with the mind will be cut off, because all of this must be established based on clear and wise knowledge, otherwise it is impossible. If one speaks of these things without examination, indulging in mere superficial pleasure, then here it is not to be refuted, because those things cannot be refuted, and there is no need to refute them. So what is to be refuted? Here, what is to be reversed is the clinging to all things that are the cause of suffering as true. Here, the commentators explain that seeing is direct perception, hearing is from another person, and knowing is a term established through inference as valid cognition. The false-aspect Mind-Only school says: If the appearance of external objects that appear from one's own mind, like an illusion, is not established as an external object, because external objects cannot be established, then does one's own mind appear as that, not other, but one? It should not be considered the same as the mind, because if it were one, then the mind becoming an indivisible oneness would collapse. Therefore, like the appearance of hair strands in the sky, we consider it to be merely a baseless appearance. The nature of the mind is free from all aspects, existing like a pure crystal ball, so there is no fault. If you consider the mind to be real, then how can the object or appearance not be other? Because you consider the appearance to be unreal, the common basis of real and unreal is impossible. If, fearing that fault, you say that the mind is also not other, then the mind will also become unreal, because it is one with the unreal appearance. If the mind is not real, it cannot be the seer. If you think that even though the external object, like an illusion, is not true, it can be seen by knowledge, then similarly, the mind that sees, although not true like an illusion, can also be the seer. The above is based on the previous refutation and the establishment here. If samsara is established as a mind that is dependent on others
Chinese
是具有依赖性的。如果轮回不是以心识实有成立，就会像虚空一样，什么都没有，轮回的显现不可能产生，因为没有基础，就像没有泥土的瓶子和没有纱线的布一样。如果认为轮回是实有，那么它与心识是一体还是他体？如果是一体，就不可分离；如果是他体，心识唯有宗就会崩溃，所以承许为非实有。然而，这样的轮回非实有，没有作用，因此它依赖于实有成立的心识。那么，它怎么能具有解脱的作用呢？就像兔子的角依赖于手也不能挖地一样，非实有不依赖于任何事物。如果依赖，就会变成因果的实有。所谓非实有，有两种说法：一种是指在名言中也不存在的彻底不存在，另一种是指没有真实实有的幻象。因此，没有认识到即使没有真实实有，显现也是非常合理的，实有论者们将其视为彻底不存在，这是对他们的回答方式。这样，非实有和心识实有二者永远不相关联，因此，心识唯有宗的你的心识，就会变成没有助伴、自知自明、唯一的。当心识与所取分离时，能取也空，当二空显现时，彼时真如显现，因此一切有情从一开始就变成如来，不需要道的努力。如果是这样，那么，将一切法都视为唯心，仅仅在名识上进行分析并建立宗义，有什么功德呢？像这样，心识唯有的声音，虽然想要遮止心识之外的事物，并成立二空的真如，但因为不需要遮止二现，也不需要成立二空，那么这条道路有什么用呢？因此，如果承认无相，轮回的显现就会变成无根，一切体验都会中断。第二，驳斥对空性的辩论：像这样，即使知道内外的事物都像幻象，又怎么能以此使贪等烦恼止息呢？不能止息。