English
It is unchanging. Because it is gradually changing, it contradicts permanence. If it arises simultaneously, then it would follow that the fruit ripens at the time of the cause. Because simultaneously, the cause and effect must be one. If you accept that, then it is obvious. Furthermore, if it arises from impermanence, does it arise from the past, the future, or the present? It is unreasonable for it to arise from the past, because the cause and effect have already been used up. It is unreasonable for it to arise from the future, because it does not exist in the place. If it arises from the present, does it arise simultaneously or at different times? There is no benefit in arising simultaneously, so it cannot arise. If it arises at different times, do the cause and effect meet or not? If they meet, do they meet simultaneously or at different times? If they meet simultaneously, then the vow of cause and effect is broken. If they meet at different times, then cause and effect cannot be established, because there is no benefactor and no object of benefit. If it arises from both, since it does not arise from self or other, how can it arise from both? Again, if you say it arises from no cause, because no cause does not depend on conditions, it would follow that permanence also does not exist, because time suddenly appears, so cause and effect cannot be established. Secondly, the reasoning of existence and non-existence obstructing the arising of fruit is: The Mind-Only school considers self-awareness to be the ultimate truth, this is the subject, it does not have a true nature, because it does not arise from the existence or non-existence of the fruit, like space. That is to say: It is not reasonable for existence to arise, and non-existence is like a flower in the sky. Therefore, the wise should not dwell in existence and non-existence. So it is said. If you say the reasoning is not established, then, does the arising of a single fruit arise from existence or from non-existence? If it arises from existence, then what is the need to arise if it already exists? The opponent says: There is a need to make the bad good, the small big, and so on. Then, it does not arise from existence, because there is no good or big. If it arises from non-existence, then non-existence should not be the nature of the fruit, so arising is unreasonable. If it arises from non-existence, then it would follow that a rabbit grows horns. Again, if it arises from non-existence, then, when it arises later, does the previous non-existence disappear or not? If it does not disappear, then it should be non-existent later as well. If it disappears, then it should have existed before, because it disappeared from the previous non-existence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider self-awareness to be the ultimate truth. Third, the cause
Chinese
阻止果和因的四种方式的生灭之理是：唯识宗认为自证是究竟的，这是有法。实际上，它没有自性，因为从一和多中没有产生果。也就是说，在两种真理中，多的自性不会变成一，一不会变成多的事物。如果说理由不成立，那么，是从多个因中产生一个果，还是从一个因中不产生果，还是从多个因中产生多个果，还是从一个因中产生一个果？如果说从多个因中产生一个果，那也是不合理的，因为会变成从多个种子中产生一个果。如果承认，那就是显而易见的。如果说从一个因中产生多个果，那也是不合理的，因为会变成从一个青稞种子中，产生小麦和豆类等多个果。如果说从多个因中产生多个果，那也是不合理的，因为会变成在因中木胶等的声音没有消失的情况下，果也同样产生弓。如果说一个因产生一个果，那也是不合理的，因为会变成种下一个青稞种子，果也只成熟一个青稞。第四，阻止自身本体的一和多分离的理由是：显现的外内事物，这是有法。实际上，它没有自性，因为它与一和多分离，就像有色法一样。正如《中观庄严论》中所说：我和他人的事物，实际上与一和多的自性分离，因此没有自性，就像有色法一样。如果说理由不成立，那么，显现的事物存在于一还是多？如果存在于一，那么是具有部分的整体存在，还是没有部分的整体存在？如果具有部分，那就不能成为一，因为会变成多。如果没有部分，那就不成立，因为它具有六方。详细的在声闻乘中已经讲述。如果存在于多，那么，多是否依赖于一？如果不依赖，那么遍及一切的一不成立，遍及一切的多也不成立。如果依赖，那么，那个一是否具有部分？用是否具有部分来观察，与前面相同。第五，通过建立相违来阻止相关，缘起的理由是：眼识等显现
English
The logic of preventing the arising and ceasing in four ways, which prevents both cause and effect, is: That which the Mind-Only school considers self-awareness to be ultimate is the subject. In reality, it has no inherent existence, because no effect arises from one and many. That is to say, in the two truths, the nature of many does not become one, and one does not become the object of many. If it is said that the reason is not established, then, does one effect arise from many causes, or does no effect arise from one cause, or do many effects arise from many causes, or does one effect arise from one cause? If it is said that one effect arises from many causes, that is also unreasonable, because it would follow that one effect arises from many seeds. If you accept that, it is manifestly clear. If it is said that many effects arise from one cause, that is also unreasonable, because it would follow that from one barley seed, many effects such as wheat and beans arise. If it is said that many effects arise from many causes, that is also unreasonable, because it would follow that the sound of wood glue and so forth in the cause does not diminish, and the effect, the bow, also arises to the same extent. If it is said that one cause produces one effect, that is also unreasonable, because it would follow that planting one barley seed would result in only one barley grain ripening as the effect. Fourth, the reason for preventing the self-nature, being separate from one and many, is: These phenomena of outer and inner objects are the subject. In reality, they have no inherent existence, because they are separate from one and many, like form. As it says in the Ornament of the Middle Way: These objects spoken of by self and others, in reality, are separate from the nature of one and many, therefore they have no inherent existence, like form. If it is said that the reason is not established, then, does this phenomenon exist as one or as many? If it exists as one, does it exist as one with parts or as one without parts? If it has parts, it cannot be one, because it would become many. If it exists without parts, it is not established, because it has six directions. This is explained in detail in the context of the Hearers. If it exists as many, then do the many depend on one or not? If they do not depend, then the one that pervades all is not established, and the many that pervade all are also not established. If they depend, then whether that one has parts or not is examined as before. Fifth, the reason for interdependence, which prevents the related by establishing the contradictory, is: Appearances such as eye consciousness
Chinese
体验感受的这个法，立宗它不是真实的正缘起，也不是真实的正因果。而是暂时的缘起，或者说是暂时的因，因为依赖于各种各样的因缘。如果说理由不成立，那么，因果是真实存在的吗？如果存在，那就成了实有。如果承认，那么一切实有都被一和多相离所损害，所以没有自性。对于没有自性的东西，认为它是真实的，这是不可能的。如果因果不是真实存在的，那它就是缘起。即使真实存在，如果不是缘起，那又是什么呢？所以说周遍不成立。如果显现不是真实成立的，却显现为各种各样，那就是缘起，就像幻化的显现一样。还有，依靠境、根、识这三者，色法的行止是确定的。如果这三种识中的任何一种不完整，识就不会产生，这是显而易见的。因此，周遍在自续上成立，在顺成上也成立，这就是缘起。第五，确定周遍的例子也有两种：周遍和例子。周遍有两种：周遍的定义和周遍的差别。周遍的定义是：所立和能立的关系，无论是显现的还是真实的，都存在一种随同或相离的关系，例如：哪里有烟，哪里就有火，就像厨房一样。哪里没有烟，哪里就没有火，就像河流一样。诸如此类。周遍的差别有两种：一种是将事物作为理由，在辩论的论题上成立周遍，例如：与一和多相离的事物，遍及没有自性。另一种是将周遍作为理由，在相似的例子上成立周遍，例如：哪里有烟，哪里就有火，就像厨房一样。例子实际上有两种：自性成立的相似例子是：真实存在的事物，没有自性的例子是：有色法的事物。驳斥其他宗派的不同例子是：外道说：有色法已经到彼岸去了，这是不合理的，因为互相排斥。声闻乘说：是从五大借来的，这也是不合理的，因为不是有色法，而且有碍触的两者不能存在于同一个地方。唯识宗说：自己的心
English
This phenomenon of experiencing is the subject. I assert that it is not a true and accurate dependent arising, nor is it a true and accurate cause and effect. Rather, it is a temporary dependent arising, or a temporary cause, because it relies on various causes and conditions. If you say that the reason is not established, then, do causes and effects truly exist? If they exist, then they become substantial entities. If you concede, then all substantial entities are harmed by being separate from one and many, so they have no inherent nature. It is impossible to consider something without inherent nature as truly existing. If causes and effects do not truly exist, then that is dependent arising. Even if they truly exist, if they are not dependent arising, then what are they? Therefore, the pervasion is not established. If appearances are not truly established but appear in various ways, that is dependent arising, like illusory appearances. Furthermore, relying on the object, the sense faculty, and the consciousness, the movement of form is definite. If any one of these three consciousnesses is incomplete, consciousness will not arise, which is manifestly clear. Therefore, the pervasion is established on its own system and also established on the concordant establishment, which is dependent arising. Fifth, there are also two types of examples for establishing pervasion: the pervasion and the example. There are two types of pervasion: the definition of pervasion and the distinctions of pervasion. The definition of pervasion is: the relationship between what is to be proven and what proves it, whether apparent or real, has a relationship of concomitance or separation, for example: where there is smoke, there is fire, like in a kitchen. Where there is no smoke, there is no fire, like a river. And so on. There are two distinctions of pervasion: one is to establish pervasion on the topic of debate by using a thing as the reason, for example: things that are separate from one and many are pervaded by the absence of inherent nature. The other is to establish pervasion on a similar example by using pervasion as the reason, for example: where there is smoke, there is fire, like in a kitchen. There are actually two types of examples: a similar example where the nature is established is: things that truly exist, an example where there is no inherent nature is: things that have form. Refuting the different examples of other schools is: the Tirthikas say: things with form have gone to the other shore, which is unreasonable, because they are mutually exclusive. The Shravakas say: it is borrowed from the elements, which is also unreasonable, because things that are not form and things that are obstructive cannot exist in the same place. The Mind-Only school says: one's own mind
Chinese
说它是地也不合理，因为有形之物无法被分析。因此，它仅仅是幻象，因为没有自性。第四个共同点是，推理的运用对象有两个：自续和应成。这两者的区别是：自续的见解仅仅是为了消除疑惑的过失，而遮止他人的承诺就是应成。自续有两种：如幻和不住。这两者的区别是：在分析时遮止所破，在总观时承诺虚假或如幻，这就是如幻。在分析时遮止真实的实有，在总观时没有任何承诺，这就是不住。这二者是自续。应成是：自己没有任何承诺，而遮止他人正确地承诺。用什么来遮止呢？用上面所说的五种理证来遮止。这是基的中观。道的中观是禅定，在等持中将一切法观为空性，如同虚空一般。行是：在后得位时，为了利益众生而行持六度，如同幻象一般。果的中观是：如此一来，智慧的积聚显现为空性，为了自利而解脱为法身，然后在后得位时，依靠福德的积聚，为了他人的显现，依靠色身二身来利益众生。对此的驳斥是：你们中观宗，破立是过失大还是不大？如果大，那么对于真实义，有破立吗？如果有，那么这里没有什么需要去除的，没有什么需要安立的。以真实看待真实，见到真实就解脱。这与上述说法相违背。如果没有，那么五大理证，能遮止实执吗？如果能遮止，那么就成了有破立，因此不是真实。如果不能遮止，那么五大理证就成了无意义。如果破立不是过失大，那么小乘的见解有破立也没有过失。如果承认，那么因为执着破立为量，所以无论说什么都是被真实的欺骗，无论说什么都不能确定。这与所说相违背。还有对所有名相师的矛盾是：你存在于众生相续中的