Chinese
如果欲望的意义是性行为，那么就像太监缺乏进行性行为的能力而无法实现愿望一样，这样的常实之境也因缺乏作用能力而空虚，即使承认了它，也永远无法如所承认的那样获得。因此，有智慧的人会对具有作用能力的事物进行破立的区分，不会接受或追求毫无意义的、强加的徒劳之苦。正因如此，就像无病之人无需服药一样，也无需破斥，应该保持中立。那么，之前没有破斥常实吗？那是在破斥他人的邪见。如果他人没有那样执着，也无需破斥，所以要知道破斥是因他而生的。因此，宣称“作用能力是事物的特征”，并对这样的事物，以正量显示人与法无我等如实之证成，并破斥与之相反的虚构之物。如果以作用能力为考察的基础，如以破立之量来衡量，就能毫不欺骗地获得人的目的，就像有欲望的女子考察男子一样。如果认为仅仅是成立事物的无我，所以没有显示一切法无我，那是不对的。因为“一切”这个词表达了想要表达的全部意义，而想要表达的是执着于作用能力的事物。如果认识到事物无我，为什么不认识到非事物无我呢？因为非事物仅仅是断绝事物的否定，除此之外别无他物，所以即使以世俗的量，也能确定在作用能力空虚之处，丝毫也不存在独立自主的境。如果显示不把非事物本身作为独立的基础来进行破立，更不用说在胜义中不成立了。对事物进行分析，被破斥的事物就被称为非事物。除此之外，非事物作为独立自主的显现，是永远不可能在心中出现的，那么智者们怎么会执着于它独立存在呢？如果不执着，又何必破斥它，又何必成立它呢？
English
If the meaning of desire is sexual intercourse, then just as a eunuch lacks the ability to perform sexual intercourse and cannot fulfill his wish, so too, such a permanent and real object is empty of the ability to function. Even if it is admitted, it is never obtained as admitted. Therefore, those with intelligence make distinctions of affirmation and negation with respect to things that have the ability to function, and do not accept or pursue the meaningless suffering of forced imposition. For this very reason, just as a healthy person does not need to take medicine, there is no need to refute, and one should remain neutral. Well, didn't you refute the permanent and real earlier? That was refuting others' wrong views. If others have not grasped it in that way, there is no need to refute it, so know that the refutation arises from others. Therefore, it is said that "the ability to function is the characteristic of a thing," and for such a thing, the two valid cognitions show the unmistaken proof of the selflessness of persons and phenomena, and refute the fabricated things that are the opposite of that. If the ability to function is taken as the basis for investigation, then, as measured by the valid cognitions of affirmation and negation, one can attain the purpose of a person without deception, just as a woman with desire examines a man. If you think that only the selflessness of things is established, and therefore the selflessness of all phenomena is not shown, that is not so. Because the word "all" expresses the entire meaning that one wants to express, and what one wants to express is the thing that is grasped as the ability to function. If you realize that things are selfless, why don't you realize that non-things are selfless? Because non-things are merely the negation of the cutting off of things, and there is nothing else besides that, so even with conventional valid cognition, it is certain that in a place empty of the ability to function, there is not even a little bit of independently established object. If it is shown that non-things themselves are not taken as an independent basis for affirmation and negation, what need is there to mention that they are not established in the ultimate sense? Analyze things, and the thing that is refuted is called a non-thing. Apart from that, it is never possible for a non-thing to appear independently in the mind, so how can the wise grasp it as existing independently? If you don't grasp it, what need is there to refute it, and what need is there to establish it?
Chinese
就像对待孩子等一样，称之为保持中舍。对于无实等词语，它们自然产生，并且依赖于事物而生起，不需要另外努力。因此，世俗谛仅仅安立于具有作用能力的事物上。因为它是具有作用能力的，所以必然是刹那性的。否则，如果不是刹那性的，就会与次第和另一者的作用相违背。这种方式在讲解世俗谛时非常重要。像这样分析词语后，对于将实有执着为世俗谛的观点来说，仅仅是假立存在，没有独立自主的体性。因此，不需要将它们安立为其他事物，就像瓶子和瓶子的总相等等一样。虽然在胜义谛中，常与无常二者都无法成立，但在名言中，事物必定是无常的，而常的词语仅仅是将与无常相违背的安立为常，并且要知道将相似的种类持续不断地称为常。因此，从观察实情的角度来看，一切法都仅仅是依赖而假立的。具有缘起性的显现，虽然没有成立，但却无法阻止，就像水中的月亮一样，因此，任何单独的事物都不可能是真实的。因此，这种离一异性在任何时候和任何情况下都会遮止一的真实性。要知道这并不是要遮止假立的名言一。仅仅是假立的一，是因为在众多事物上假立为一，实际上并没有单独成立，因此它不会损害一的真实性。同样，正确地辨别真实成立和仅仅是假立的名言成立等等在任何时候都非常重要。就像“sen+dha”的声音一样，如果不理解直接区分含义，那么无论讲解或听闻什么经论，心都会像草帕拉瓦扎一样纠缠在一起，什么也无法确定，所以要区分清楚。第二，破斥补特伽罗一的真实性。经中说：“刹那非刹那，不可示补特伽罗，离一与多之自性，应知了然极明显。”也就是说，对于在轮回中从一生到另一生相续，并且作为系缚和解脱的词语所安立的基础的众生之流，执着于单独的个体，并假立为补特伽罗。补特伽罗在轮回中
English
It is called maintaining equanimity, just like with children and so on. As for terms like non-existence, they arise naturally and depend on things, so there is no need to make separate efforts. Therefore, conventional truth is established only on things that have the ability to function. Because it has the ability to function, it must be momentary. Otherwise, if it is not momentary, it would contradict the function of sequence and otherness. This way is very important when explaining conventional truth. Having analyzed the terms in this way, for the view that clings to substance as conventional truth, mere imputation does not have an independent nature. Therefore, there is no need to establish them as other things, just like a pot and the general characteristic of a pot, and so on. Although in ultimate truth, neither permanence nor impermanence is established, in name, things are definitely impermanent, and the term "permanent" is established as merely the opposite of impermanent, and it should be understood that calling similar kinds continuous is called permanent. Therefore, from the perspective of examining the state of affairs, all phenomena exist only as dependently imputed. Appearances with the nature of interdependence, although not established, cannot be prevented, like the moon in water, so nothing alone can be true. Therefore, this freedom from one and many prevents the truth of one at all times and in all ways. It should be known that this is not to prevent the mere imputation of one. The mere imputation of one is merely imputed as one on many things, so it is not actually established alone, so it does not harm the truth of one. Similarly, it is very important at all times to correctly distinguish between truly established and merely imputed establishment, and so on. Just like the sound of "sen+dha", if you do not understand how to directly distinguish the meaning, then no matter what scriptures are explained or listened to, the mind will become entangled like grass palava, and nothing can be determined, so it must be clearly distinguished. Second, refuting the truth of the person as one. It is said in the scriptures: "Momentary, non-momentary, the person cannot be shown, devoid of the nature of one and many, should be known clearly and very obviously." That is to say, for the stream of beings who continue from one life to another in samsara, and who are the basis for the establishment of the terms of bondage and liberation, clinging to a single individual and imputing it as a person. The person in samsara
Chinese
游荡者说，解脱是指将前后多个刹那加在一起。对此，以意识缘取，用“我”和“士夫”等名称来称呼，凡是属于自身相续的，众生未经观察分析就执着为“我”。外道们认为，这个“我”是享受者，是常恒的事物，不是变化的作者等，具有这样的特征，并且执着其本体是未生本有之类的。其中，有的认为它遍及一切业，有的认为不遍及，有的认为是物质，有的认为是意识等，他们宣说用俱生的铁锁，加上后天安立的各种钉子的宗派。 स्थितमातृ（Sthiramati，坚慧）的部派认为，“我”是实有的，是业果的所依，它既不是与蕴一体，也不是可以被说成是他体，同样，也不能被说成是常或无常等。所有持有自相的佛教宗义家都认为，所谓的“我”只不过是对五蕴的集合和相续产生“我”的错觉而已，如果用理智来确定这个“我”的实相，那么，这个刹那刹那生灭的五取蕴不是“我”，从其他方面来说，也无法合乎道理地指出有任何微尘许的“人”存在。因此，有智慧的人们非常清楚地知道，“人”只是在作为安立基础的蕴上假立的名称，实际上它远离了真实的一和多的自性。因为，离开了蕴的“我”是不成立的，而蕴是多和无常的，所以“我”不可能具有真实唯一的自性。此外，如果“我”是刹那性的，那么由于产生不同的自性，它就会变成多个，并且作者和受者也会不同。如果不是刹那性的，那么先前的就不会消失，而后面的也不会产生，这样就会变成常恒唯一的自性。如果是这样，那么解脱、束缚、苦乐等就不合理，并且未生之物不可能存在，就像石女的儿子一样，并且普遍被遮破常有的正理所破斥。不可言说的“我”由于真实的周遍（指常有）被否定，所以被周遍的事物（指我）又怎么可能真实存在呢？
English
The wanderers say that liberation is achieved by adding up many moments, past and present. They conceptually focus on this and refer to it by names such as "self" and "person." Ordinary beings, without investigation or analysis, grasp at whatever belongs to their own continuum as "I." The non-Buddhists believe that this self is the enjoyer, a permanent entity, and not the agent of change, possessing such characteristics. They also cling to the notion that its essence is unborn and primordially existent. Some claim it pervades all actions, while others say it does not. Some consider it material, others conscious. They propound doctrines that are like innate iron shackles fastened with various fabricated nails. The Sthiramati school asserts that the self exists as a real entity and is the basis for karmic results. It is neither identical to the aggregates nor can it be said to be different from them. Similarly, it cannot be described as either permanent or impermanent. All Buddhist schools that uphold characteristics believe that the notion of "I" is merely an imputation on the collection and continuity of the five aggregates. If one were to ascertain the nature of this "I" through reasoning, it would become clear that these five aggregates, which arise and cease moment by moment, are not the "I." Furthermore, it is impossible to rationally demonstrate even a particle of a "person" existing apart from them. Therefore, those with wisdom understand very clearly that the term "person" is merely a designation imputed in dependence upon the aggregates, which serve as its basis of imputation. In reality, it is devoid of the nature of being truly one or many. Since a self separate from the aggregates cannot be established, and the aggregates are multiple and impermanent, the self cannot possess a true, singular nature. Moreover, if the self were momentary, it would become multiple due to the arising of different natures, and the agent and experiencer would be distinct. If it were not momentary, the previous moment would not cease, and the subsequent moment would not arise, resulting in a permanent, singular nature. In that case, liberation, bondage, happiness, and suffering would be untenable, and the existence of an unarisen entity would be impossible, like the son of a barren woman. Generally, it is refuted by the reasoning that refutes permanent entities. Since the unnameable self is negated by the negation of the pervasive factor of truth (i.e., permanence), how can the pervaded object (i.e., the self) possibly exist as true?
Chinese
因此，正因为没有一和多，所以就像虚空中的花朵等一样，不需要造作就能成立。即使在名言中，如果事物存在，也必然相对于一个基础而存在一或多。如果我没有这个特性，却立誓说我存在，这就是承认了没有周遍因的周遍果，实在是愚蠢至极，就像承认没有树却想要有树叶一样。因此，世尊说：譬如肢分积聚，施设名为车。如是诸蕴和合，假名说众生。如是，所谓“人”，远离了一和多的自性，所以在胜义中没有真实。但在世俗名言中，以五蕴为因，执着为我。仅仅将未分割的五蕴执着为一，就安立为人。将五蕴的刹那相续执着为一，就称为相续。对于未分割方向和时间的属于那个相续的法，安立为一，就像“这个人先前从这里转移，之后生于此”一样，可以这样说。对此，俱生我执仅仅执着于依赖五蕴而安立的“我”，而不是分割五蕴后清晰地执着，因为这仅仅是由于习惯于不区分地执着而产生的力量所致。然而，作为所安立法的“人”的安立基础是五蕴，因此，如果区分执着相并进行分析，就必须这样安立：仅仅以五蕴安立为人，就像执着瓶子的意识，其执着境仅仅是所安立的瓶子，但安立的基础，如色等自相，也被安立为执着境一样。因此，如果分析作为业果之所依的“我”是什么，有些人认为是心识的相续，有些人认为是蕴的相续等。但实际上，果报成熟于造业者自身，不可能成熟于其他。而所谓“造业者”，也只是对于众多聚集的法假立为“造业者”而已。胜义中，造业者和业果等并不真实成立。正因为没有这些，业因果才不会徒劳无功，也不会与未造之业相遇，这仅仅是安立而已。