Chinese
这是不可能的，因为天空广阔无垠。如果看到无因而生的事物，那么四种不存在的事物就会存在。正如所说，因为无因不依赖于条件，所以它总是存在或不存在。因此，无因不会受到条件的影响，就像没有种子的幼苗一样。此外，他们认为没有全知者，就像一个人通过训练可以跳跃一箭之地或一呼之远，但不可能在空中飞行一样。在修行的世界里，可能只有智慧的敏锐和迟钝之分，但不可能有全知者。他们这样说。正如《微细论》中所说：从少量积累的差异来看，完全卓越是不可能的。在空中，只能在十弓的范围内移动，超过这个范围是不可能的。通过冥想也无法实现。他们这样说。对此的反驳有两点。第一，证明全知者过去存在：经藏（广、中、略）是法，立宗：宣说此法的导师是一位全知的导师。因为所说内容没有错误。例如，看到一座精美的寺庙，就能认识到工匠的精湛技艺。他们说：即使所说内容没有错误，如果不是全知者所说，那又如何呢？也就是说，遍（周遍性）没有成立。那么，如果看到一座精美的寺庙，却说不是由技艺精湛的工匠建造的，又该如何反驳呢？后随和反随是确定的。第二，证明全知者未来可以产生：具有稳固传承、习惯和特殊性的修行者的心识，是法，将会成为全知者。立宗：因为这是修习的极致。就像因缘和合的果实一样。如果说理由不成立，那么，即使因缘和合，也不会产生结果。此外，他们说，众生所见即是真实，其他皆不真实，因为没有见到。对此的反驳是：因为有些人没有见到，所以其他众生的存在不真实吗？因为有些人没有见到，所以存在不真实吗？因为你没有见到，所以菩提伽耶也不存在吗？因为没有见到一切，所以不真实是没有理由的，因为圣者们已经看到了轮回和涅槃的一切。此外，断见者也有这个共同的过失。
English
This is impossible, because the sky is vast and boundless. If one sees things arising without a cause, then four non-existent things would exist. As it is said, because causelessness does not depend on conditions, it would always exist or not exist. Therefore, causelessness is not subject to the efforts of conditions, like a sprout without a seed. Furthermore, they assert that there is no omniscient teacher, just as a person, through training, can jump a distance of an arrow-shot or a shout, but it is impossible to fly in the sky. In the world of practice, there may only be sharpness and dullness of intellect, but omniscience is impossible. They say so. As it is said in the 'Fine Analysis': From the differences of accumulating a little, complete excellence is impossible. In the sky, one can only move within ten cubits; beyond that, it is not possible. It cannot be accomplished through meditation. They say so. The refutation of this is twofold. First, to prove that an omniscient being existed in the past: The scriptures (extensive, intermediate, and concise) are the subject, the proposition is that the teacher who spoke these scriptures was an omniscient teacher. Because there is no error in what is said. For example, seeing a beautiful temple, one recognizes the skill of the craftsman. They say: Even if what is said is without error, what if it was not spoken by an omniscient being? That is, the pervasion (vyapti) is not established. Then, if one sees a beautiful temple but says it was not built by a skilled craftsman, how can one refute that? The forward and reverse entailment are certain. Second, to prove that an omniscient being can arise in the future: The mind-stream of a great meditator who has a stable lineage, habituation, and special qualities is the subject, it will become omniscient. The proposition is: because it is the ultimate culmination of practice. Like a fruit from the gathering of causes and conditions. If one says the reason is not established, then it follows that even if causes and conditions are gathered, the result will not arise. Furthermore, they say that whatever appears to each being is true, and nothing else is true, because it is not seen. The refutation of this is: Because some have not seen, is the existence of other beings untrue? Because some have not seen, is existence untrue? Because you have not seen, does it follow that Bodh Gaya does not exist? Because not seeing everything is not a reason for untruth, because the noble ones have seen all of samsara and nirvana. Furthermore, nihilists also have this common fault.
Chinese
那么，你的断灭是经历了感受而断灭呢？还是没有经历也断灭？如果经历了感受而断灭，因为经历了感受，所以不应该断灭。如果说经历了也断灭，那么眼睛的对境也应该断灭，因为经历了也断灭。如果说它没有断灭，而是显而易见的，那么你的也是通过感受而显现的。如果又说没有经历也断灭，那么耳朵的对境也应该显现。如果同意这个观点，那么在耳朵的对境中，没有经历过色，就不会进入断灭与否的辩论。同样，对于没有经历过的东西，没有断灭的理由。这是对断灭的阐述。 主张常恒论的人说：我常恒，唯一。他们认为，在五蕴的相续中，有一个能吃者、作者和作为者，这个唯一的自我在胜义谛中存在。这分为两种：一般性地破斥常恒，以及分别地破斥常恒。一般性地破斥是：常恒法，就其本质而言，是没有自性的，因为它空无次第和同时产生作用的能力，就像兔子的角一样。《善显经》中说：不是次第，也不是同时，因为空无次第和同时，胜者说没有自性。嘿嘿。如果说因不成立，那么你的常恒能够产生作用吗？如果不能，那么它就不是常恒，因为常恒是事物，而事物的特征是能够产生作用，而你的常恒不能产生作用。如果说能够产生作用，那么是次第产生作用还是同时产生作用？如果是次第产生作用，那么它就不是常恒，因为次第是变化的，而常恒被认为是不会变化的，这是矛盾的。如果是同时产生作用，那么在因的时候果就会成熟，如果同意这个观点，那么这是显而易见的，就像种子和幼苗一样。《入行论》中说：如果果存在于因中，那么吃了食物就会变成吃不净之物。此外，是先前产生作用然后之后产生作用，还是不产生作用？如果产生作用，那么常恒是不变化的，而先前和之后是变化的，因此常恒就消失了。如果先前产生作用而之后不产生作用，那么先前产生作用而之后不产生作用，常恒就消失了。分别破斥分为三种：相的实体的常恒，存在方式的智慧的常恒，以及主张秘密的边执为知识。第一种是相的实体
English
Then, is your cessation experienced and then ceases? Or does it cease even without experiencing? If it ceases after experiencing, then because of experiencing, it should not cease. If you say it ceases even after experiencing, then the object of the eye should also cease, because it ceases even after experiencing. If you say that it does not cease, but is manifestly clear, then yours is also clear through experience. If you say it ceases even without experiencing, then the object of the ear should also appear. If you agree with this view, then in the object of the ear, without experiencing form, the debate of cessation or non-cessation does not enter. Similarly, for something not experienced, there is no reason for cessation. This is the explanation of cessation. Those who assert permanence say: I am permanent, one. They believe that in the continuum of the five aggregates, there is an eater, a doer, and an agent, this single self exists in ultimate truth. This is divided into two: generally refuting permanence, and specifically refuting permanence. The general refutation is: the permanent dharma, in its essence, is without self-nature, because it is empty of the ability to produce effects sequentially and simultaneously, like the horns of a rabbit. The Sutra Lamp of Excellence says: Not sequential, nor simultaneous, because it is empty of sequential and simultaneous, the Victorious One said it is without self-nature. Hehe. If you say the reason is not established, then can your permanent produce effects or not? If it cannot, then it is not permanent, because permanent is a thing, and the characteristic of a thing is the ability to produce effects, and your permanent cannot produce effects. If you say it can produce effects, then does it produce effects sequentially or simultaneously? If it produces effects sequentially, then it is not permanent, because sequential is changing, and permanent is considered unchanging, which is contradictory. If it produces effects simultaneously, then the fruit will ripen at the time of the cause, if you agree with this view, then it is manifestly clear, like a seed and a sprout. The Engaging in Bodhisattva Deeds says: If the fruit exists in the cause, then eating food will become eating impure things. Furthermore, does it produce effects earlier and then produce effects later, or does it not produce effects? If it produces effects, then permanent is unchanging, but earlier and later are changing, therefore permanence is lost. If it produces effects earlier and then does not produce effects later, then it produces effects earlier and then does not produce effects later, permanence is lost. The specific refutation is divided into three: the permanence of the entity of characteristics, the permanence of the wisdom of the mode of existence, and asserting the extreme of secrecy as knowledge. The first is the entity of characteristics.
Chinese
所谓常，是指有一个实体的“我”。它存在于所有众生的心脏中心。大的时候像拇指那么大，小的时候像芥子那么小。更小的时候像头发尖那么小。白色而闪亮，油润而圆滑，恒常存在。它因所造的善恶业而使众生往生天界和恶道。常的分别念不会改变，而愚钝的心识则被认为是会改变的。如《微细明论》所说：“我的常，心识是会变的。蕴的相续结合，就像瓦罐破碎，沙子倾泻一样。常如拇指和芥子般大小，那个被称为‘我’的，就是它。”驳斥它：你所说的白色而闪亮的东西，眼识能够认知它吗？如果说能，那就不能成立常。因为眼识所认知的对境是有实体的，而有实体的法不能成立常，因为它与一和多相离，就像影像一样。如果说眼识不能认知，那么，白色而闪亮的东西，是谁认知的呢？如果说是意识认知，那么，它是有实体的还是意识的分别？如果是有实体的，眼识不可能不认知它。如果是意识的分别，那么，它是否被量所确定？如果被确定，那就不能说是意识的分别。如果没有被确定，那它就不能成为常的实体。顺世外道的常是：我恒常是唯一的作者。是自主的，具有知性和觉性的自性。不由四大产生，而是以觉性的法而成立。他们说有一个一切的作者。驳斥它：这样的常，是刹那存在还是恒常存在？如果是刹那存在，那就成了无常。因为刹那不被认为是存在于第二个时间，因为它会变化。如果是恒常存在，那么，恒常是否遍及刹那？如果不遍及，那么，由于遍及者刹那不存在，所遍及的恒常也不存在。如果遍及，由于被刹那所遍及，那就成了无常。秘密宗的理作者说：一切法都是知性和觉性的，因此认为是自性。这个觉性也不是常，也不是断。体性不变，能力显现为各种觉性，认为是唯一的。如《梵网经》所说：离常断二边的清净一
English
The permanent is: There is a single entity called "self". It exists in the center of the hearts of all sentient beings. When it is large, it is the size of a thumb; when it is small, it is the size of a mustard seed. Even smaller, it is the size of a hair tip. White and shiny, oily and smooth, it remains permanent. It causes sentient beings to go to higher realms and lower realms due to the karma of good and evil deeds. The permanent concept does not change, but the dull mind is considered to change. As it says in the *Fine Distinction*: "My permanent self, the mind changes. The combination of aggregates also, is like a broken pot, sand pouring out. The permanent is the size of a thumb and a mustard seed. That which is called 'self' is taken." Refuting it: Can the eye consciousness perceive that which you say is white and shiny? If you say it can, then permanence is not established. Because the object perceived by the eye consciousness is an entity, and permanence cannot be established for an entity, because it is separate from one and many, like an image. If you say that the eye consciousness cannot perceive it, then how do you know that there is something white and shiny? If you say that the mind knows it, then is it an entity or a mental construct? If it is an entity, it is impossible for the eye consciousness not to perceive it. If it is a mental construct, then has it been established by valid cognition or not? If it has been established, then it cannot be a mental construct. If it has not been established, then it will not become a permanent entity. The permanence of the Lokayata (materialist) school is: The self is the permanent, sole agent. It is independent, of the nature of knowing and awareness. It is not produced from the four elements, but is established as a dharma of awareness. They say there is one agent of all. Refuting it: Is such a permanent thing momentary or continuous? If it is momentary, then it follows that it is impermanent. Because a moment is not considered to exist in a second time, because it changes. If it is continuous, then does the continuous pervade the moment or not? If it does not pervade, then since the pervader, the moment, does not exist, it follows that the pervaded, the continuous, also does not exist. If it pervades, then since it is pervaded by the moment, it follows that it is impermanent. The secret school's logician says: All dharmas are knowing and aware, therefore they are considered to be of the nature of self. That awareness is neither permanent nor annihilated. Its essence does not change, its ability manifests as various awarenesses, and it is considered to be one. As it says in the *Brahma Net Sutra*: "The pure one, free from the two extremes of permanence and annihilation."