English
The characteristic of the thesis is that it is desired by self-pacification. In the 'Determination of Accomplishment,' it says: 'Desire is the characteristic of the thesis.' There are two divisions of the thesis: the self-sustaining thesis and the consequentialist thesis. Therein, there are two: the consequentialist that establishes the self-sustaining thesis and the consequentialist that refutes. The characteristic of the reason is that it possesses the three modes. That is, the first of the three modes is that it is definitely present in what is to be inferred; the middle mode is that it is definitely present only in similar instances; and the last mode is that it is definitely absent in dissimilar instances. There are three divisions of the reason: the reason of nature, the reason of non-observation, and the reason of the result. The specific distinctions of these three are: the reason of nature is complete with the three modes for establishing that the meaning is not different from itself. The reason of non-observation is complete with the three modes for establishing the designation of non-existence of a meaning that is not different from itself. The reason of the result is complete with the three modes for establishing that the meaning is different from itself. The word of example is definite in the sense of following. There are two divisions: the similar example and the dissimilar example. The word of the subject of the property is generally what has become the basis of the property. The characteristic of the subject of the debate is that it possesses the distinction of what is desired to be known. There are four divisions: the subject of the similar example, the subject of the dissimilar example, the subject of the occasion, and the subject of the debate. There are five kinds of invalid appearing valid cognitions: appearing valid thesis, appearing valid reason, appearing valid example, appearing valid subject, and appearing valid scripture. The appearing valid thesis is what is said to be similar and dissimilar to others. There are two kinds of appearing valid reason: what is similar to all is the uncertain common. And what is dissimilar is contradictory. What is said to be applying another's example closely is the appearing valid example. What is said to be unknown is the appearing valid subject. What is said to be undetermined is the appearing valid scripture. These are the general statements. There are five in detail: the appearing valid thesis is what is intended to be similar to others, from what is said to what is similar, the characteristic of what is compounded is impermanent, is suffering, is emptiness, is selflessness, and from that,
Chinese
如果承诺是常、乐、净、我，那么这与不清净相符，所以称为与他相符。 另外，从“量与他相违背”到“与他相违背”为止，是指常等不清净之外的清净与（常等不清净）不相符。 似是而非的理由有两种：一切都是心的作用。 称为“一切都相符”，例如，声音是所立宗，是常，因为它是心的对境。如果这样立论，由于心的对境遍及一切常与无常，所以是共同不定。 它的定义是：在争论的所依（法）上，所要成立的（常）是不确定的。 任何一个不相符的（事物）的相违，被称为互相违背，这叫做不相符。 意思是说，声音是所立宗，是常，因为它是所作。如果这样立论，由于所作与常相违背，所以是不相符，这就是相违。 它的定义是：在争论的所依（法）上，成立与所要成立的事物相反的事物。 譬如说，似是而非的例子有两种：相似的例子，以及与所比对的事物不相似，所以是不确定的。 意思是说，自性是无生的。 比如虚空中的花朵。 如果这样立论，由于虚空的自性是完全断绝的遍计所执，所以相似的例子是不确定的。 还有，由于与不相似的例子比对时，有相似之处，所以是不确定的。 称为“那也是不著名的”。 意思是说，自性是无为法，例如瓶子。如果这样立论，由于瓶子有不是常法的相似之处，所以对于不相似的例子来说是不确定的。 似是而非的法（有法）是：由于不著名，所以对于某事物的不清净的观察。 意思是说，如果以瓶子是常法作为所依（法），那么对于佛教徒来说是不成立的；如果以无常作为所依（法），那么对于外道徒来说是不成立的。 似是而非的教证是：任何自性的不清净都是不确定的。 意思是说，如果引用佛陀的教证，结果却是外道徒的教证，那么就是不净；如果引用外道徒的教证，结果却是佛教徒的教证，那么就是不净。 这样解释了咒语和定义等等。 在这里，这些量，在相似的方面也说“他”，在不相似的方面也说“他”，所以有人说这是恶劣的翻译。 从《经部》，即正确的量的教言，引用了明确解释其意图的经文，因此，这个翻译……
English
If one asserts permanence, happiness, purity, and self, then that is in accordance with impurity, so it is called being in accordance with others. Furthermore, from 'a valid cognition is incompatible with others' up to 'incompatible with others,' it means that purity, which is other than the impure such as permanence, is incompatible with the impure. There are two seemingly valid reasons: all are the actions of the mind. That which is called 'in accordance with all,' for example, sound is the subject, it is permanent because it is the object of the mind. If it is asserted like that, since the object of the mind is involved in all permanent and impermanent things, it is a common uncertain one. Its definition is: on the subject of debate, whatever is to be proven is uncertain. The incompatibility of any one incompatible thing is called mutual incompatibility, this is called incompatibility. It means, sound is the subject, it is permanent because it is made. If it is asserted like that, since what is made and permanence are contradictory, it is incompatible, that is contradictory. Its definition is: on the subject of debate, to prove the opposite of what is to be proven. There are two seemingly valid examples: a similar example, and since it is dissimilar to what is compared, it is uncertain. It means, the nature is unborn. It is like a flower in the sky. If it is asserted like that, since the nature of the sky is a completely severed conceptual construct, the similar example is uncertain. Also, since there is similarity when compared to a dissimilar example, it is uncertain. That which is called 'that is also not famous.' It means, the nature is unconditioned, for example, a pot. If it is asserted like that, since a pot has a similar aspect of not being permanent, it is uncertain for a dissimilar example. A seemingly valid subject is: because it is not famous, the examination of something is impure. It means, if a pot is permanent is made the subject, then it is not established for Buddhists; if impermanence is made the subject, then it is not established for non-Buddhists. A seemingly valid scripture is: any impurity of its own nature is uncertain. It means, if a Buddha's scripture is cited but it turns out to be a non-Buddhist scripture, then it is impure; if a non-Buddhist scripture is cited but it turns out to be a Buddhist scripture, then it is impure. Thus, it explains mantras and definitions, etc. Here, these valid cognitions, in the similar aspect, also say 'other,' and in the dissimilar aspect, also say 'other,' so it is said that this is a bad translation. From the Sutra Pitaka, the words of a correct valid cognition, a sutra that clearly explains its intention is cited, therefore, this translation...
English
Thus he remained. Therefore, one should believe that this is a translation by Ska-cog. In the case of hidden meaning (ldem po) and intention (dgongs pa), both hidden meaning and intention each have their own intention, object of taming, purpose, and way of teaching. Because the ways of expression are mixed, some think that there is no difference between hidden meaning and intention. To this, Lha-je also said from your mouth that hidden meaning is the false part, while intention is established from the true part. Jowo Lha-je said that although there are four dharmas, the ways of expression such as intention are not mixed. I think that hidden meaning is teaching the Dharma in accordance with the mind of the object of taming, while intention is teaching the Dharma in a way that is not in accordance with the mind of the object of taming, but in a remedial way. Therefore, they are not mixed. In between is Skol-mdo'o. Below chapter forty-seven, the lord of Lanka, the two are the expression of arising itself. To this, Jowo Lha-je said that the beginning of the arising of blessings and the beginning of the lineage of prophecy, the two, in the part that arises later from Rimala, belong to the beginning of the lineage of prophecy, and in the part that is narrated as history, belong to the beginning of the arising of blessings. The key point here is that in the case of the lineage of prophecy summarized in a concise way, the six such as the beginning, and the four sutras, the three roots, etc., if you want to know whether the six beginning parts that appear in this way are repeated, then the five are the beginning of the arising of blessings, that is, the first chapter is about the three bodies, the thirty-third chapter is about the five bodies, the forty-seventh chapter is about the four bodies, and the thirty-fifth chapter is about the beginning of the secret body. He said so. The beginning of the fifth chapter is the beginning of the lineage of prophecy, he said. In the twenty-fifth, the four vessels and the secret lord, in the forty-fourth, the three objects of taming, among these three vast objects of taming, the four vessels are included in the three objects of taming, but the three objects of taming are not included in the four vessels, the objects of taming are more vast. Among these four vessels, the attachment of the object of taming who will definitely arise and the two who are difficult to tame are not included in the four vessels. In the first chapter, the secret lord heard once about the four bodies. Here in the forty-seventh chapter, the secret lord heard and stayed with the four bodies, so the beginning of the arising of blessings is repeated. It should be combined later. Saying this also, from the part of arising, it is the lineage of prophecy.
Chinese
就像钥匙一样。从讲述历史的角度来说，据说就像产生加持的钥匙一样。我认为，仅加持的产生就有两个讨论的主题，是双倍的。第一章的一个讨论主题是过去发生的。第四十七章的讨论主题是否适合在以后作为历史来讲述呢？第五十五章节，黑暗的行境，有两种分段方式。如果拉杰也按照您的分段方式来分段，那么有经、广、总结三部分。广的部分有两部分：黑暗的讨论主题，一切法之根本的问答，以及黑暗的问答。第一部分有两个：提问和回答。提问是：楞伽的主人也是这样，世尊，秘密之主，从那里开始，请求开示善逝。回答有两个：简要地开示道路是：世尊这样说道。大菩萨，名为菩提心，被称为一切法之根本。一切法之根本被遮蔽而无法看见。从那里开始，应当知道与黑暗的界限为一体。这样说道。详细的回答是：混合在一起。在两个部分多一点的下面，世尊说道：大菩萨，被黑暗和光明所包含的一切法之根本，应当知道是无基础和根本地聚集在一起的。从那里开始，为了愚笨的人而知晓。直到那里为止。黑暗的问答有：经和广。简要地开示是：这也如此完全显现。支分是经和根本。是分别、解释和产生。广的部分有三个：分开黑暗的六个支分，解释的四个经，以及产生的三个根本。其中，基础的经，在阿赖耶识上提问，回答和总结。提问是上面所说的我这样祈请道：世尊，这个黑暗从何而来？等等，提出了十五个问题。回答是在下面混合在一起的。楞伽的主人，基础的经是这样的，从那里开始回答。其中，应当指出的过失是在阿赖耶识上，提问的导师
English
It goes like a key. From the perspective of telling history, it is said to go like a key that generates blessings. I think that the generation of blessings itself has two topics of discussion, which is double. One topic of discussion in the first chapter is what happened in the past. Is the topic of discussion in the forty-seventh chapter suitable to be told as history later? The fifty-fifth chapter, the realm of darkness, has two ways of dividing sections. If Lhaje also divides sections according to your method, then there are three parts: Sutra, Extensive, and Conclusion. The Extensive part has two parts: the topic of discussion of darkness, the question and answer of the root of all dharmas, and the question and answer of darkness. The first part has two: question and answer. The question is: The lord of Lanka is also like this, the Bhagavan, the lord of secrets, from there, please teach the Sugata. There are two answers: Briefly showing the path is: The Bhagavan said this. The great Bodhisattva, called Bodhicitta, is called the root of all dharmas. The root of all dharmas is obscured and cannot be seen. From there, one should know that it is one with the realm of darkness. Thus said. The detailed answer is: mixed together. Below two sections and a little more, the Bhagavan said: The great Bodhisattva, the root of all dharmas contained by darkness and light, should be known to be gathered without foundation and root. From there, know for the sake of the foolish. Up to there. The questions and answers of darkness have: Sutra and Extensive. Briefly showing is: This also appears completely like this. The limbs are Sutra and root. It is separation, explanation, and production. The Extensive part has three: six limbs that separate darkness, four Sutras of explanation, and three roots of production. Among them, the basic Sutra, the question, answer, and conclusion are on the Alaya. The question is what I said above: Bhagavan, where does this darkness come from? And so on, fifteen questions were asked. The answer is mixed together below. The lord of Lanka, the basic Sutra is like this, answer from there. Among them, the fault that should be pointed out is on the Alaya, the teacher of the question