English
Therefore, both the valid cognitions of conventional and ultimate truth equally possess these two definitions without any difference. Second, the way of non-deception is the nature of three aspects: what is not deceived, by what agent it is not deceived, and how it is not deceived. Third, regarding refutation and response: refutation and response. First, if it is non-deceptive with respect to its own character, then it is not pervasive for the valid cognition that measures non-entities, and when the sense consciousness is disturbed, such as perceiving a yellow conch shell, and trees appearing to walk, etc., there is a part that is non-deceptive with respect to its own character, so it is over-pervasive for that. Second, there is no non-pervasiveness, because the own-character is for discerning whether it exists in the thing or whether it does not exist in the thing, although non-entities do not have an own-character, they are not measured alone, so by discerning that there is no own-character, the definition of non-deception is not non-pervasive for it, so it is reasonable without fault. Disturbed sense consciousness is said to be completely deceptive, and there is no non-deception, it will be explained in this way. Second, how valid cognition cuts off superimposition, how to ascertain, and the debate and response to it. First, generally show the eliminator and the object to be eliminated, and specifically explain the object to be eliminated. First, the power of valid cognition leads to the ascertainment that cuts off doubt, and the opposite of correct ascertainment is superimposing on the other extreme. Second, definition, classification. First, the definition of superimposition is to conceptualize from the state of how things actually exist to the other extreme. Second, if classified, there are two: conceptual wrong knowledge and doubt, not non-conceptual wrong knowledge, because the appearance of two moons and the ascertainment of non-two moons can exist simultaneously. Second, there is a debate that there is ascertainment but superimposition has not been cut off, and a debate that these two should not be harmers and harmed. First, debate and response to it. First, when fire is ascertained from a sudden inference, it is only the sudden ascertainment of fire from what was not previously realized, so although it is eliminated by realizing in this way, neither superimposition wrong knowledge nor doubt is cut off, if it is ascertainment, then these two must be cut off, so it is unreasonable, so it is said. Second, inference does not appear through the way of non-conceptuality, so there is no single establishment like appearance establishment, inference itself is elimination, inference
Chinese
认为，需要排除的对境是，在没有比量之前，以某种识将该基础执著为与没有火的其他处所相同，因此存在颠倒识。第二，对于二者不适合作为损害者与被损害者的辩论的驳斥，分为一般性地阐述驳斥和阐述第一个辩论的自答两部分。第一部分：对于确定和增益二者，从境相同人不同以及真假来考察，从而辩论为不适合；以及考察二者在心的体性上是否相同，考察二者是否同时存在，这三者。以考察相同与不同的三种辩论在此不会造成损害。第二部分：确定和增益二者所执著的境相同，因为二者都将自相的遣除误认为自相，所以所执著的境仅仅是自相，然而执著的方式有符合意义和不符合意义的差别，因此适合作为排除者与被排除者。第二，以定义来确定所诠释的意义，分为所诠释的分类、对基上的错觉进行驳斥、基上确定定义的量、该量如何进行破立四部分。第一部分分为分类的依据、分类的意义、数量的确定、词义四部分。第一部分分为破和立两种。第一种：一些藏人说，决断识和寻思等不是量，却是正确的识，因此正确识不适合作为量的分类依据，这完全是胡说八道。因为已经遮止了非量的决断识和寻思等识中存在正确。法称论师将正确识分为有作用显现和作用进入两种，将后者作为分类依据来阐述是错误的。第二种自宗：因此自宗认为，唯有正确识才是量，因为二者仅仅是名称的异名，因此适合作为分类依据。第二，分类分为实体和对其方式进行考察两种。第一种：如果分类，则分为现量和比量两种。第二种分为标和释两种，第一种：如果考察这二者，是本体相同仅仅是名称不同，还是事物不同，是遮止相同还是反体不同呢？有些人说，因为比量没有对境，所以是无实，因此认为是遮止相同的不同。第二，详细解释分为破、立、遣除三种。第一：那
English
It is held that the object to be eliminated is that which, before the inference, is apprehended by a consciousness that holds the basis itself to be similar to another place without fire, and therefore there is a reversed consciousness. Second, regarding the refutation of the argument that the two are not suitable as harmer and harmed, there are two parts: a general explanation of the refutation and an explanation of the self-answer to the first argument. First part: Regarding the two, certainty and superimposition, arguing that they are not suitable by examining whether the object is the same and the person is different, and whether they are true or false; and examining whether the two are the same or different in the nature of the mind, and whether the two exist at the same time or not, these three. The three arguments of examining sameness and difference do not cause harm here. Second part: The object of attachment of the two, certainty and superimposition, is the same, because both mistake the self-exclusion for the self-characteristic, so the object of attachment is only the self-characteristic, but the ways of attachment are different in meaning and different in meaning, so it is suitable as the eliminator and the eliminated. Second, to determine the meaning expressed by the definition, there are four parts: the classification of the expressed, the refutation of misconceptions on the basis, the valid cognition that determines the definition on the basis, and how that valid cognition performs negation and affirmation. The first part has four parts: the basis of classification, the meaning of classification, the determination of number, and the meaning of words. The first part has two parts: negation and establishment. First: Some Tibetans say that decisive knowledge and speculation are not valid cognitions, but they are correct knowledge, so correct knowledge is not suitable as the basis for classifying valid cognitions, which is completely nonsense. Because it has already been prevented that there is correctness in non-valid decisive knowledge and speculative knowledge. Master Dharmakirti divides correct knowledge into two types: functional appearance and functional engagement, and it is wrong to explain the latter as the basis for classification. Second, one's own system: Therefore, one's own system believes that only correct knowledge is valid cognition, because the two are only synonyms, so it is suitable as the basis for classification. Second, classification is divided into substance and examination of its manner. First: If classified, it is divided into direct perception and inference. Second, it is divided into explanation and commentary, the first: If these two are examined, are they the same in essence and only different in name, or are they different in substance, is it the negation of the same or the difference in reverse? Some say that because inference has no object, it is unreal, so it is considered to be the difference of negating the same. Second, the detailed explanation is divided into three parts: refutation, establishment, and elimination. First: That
Chinese
不合理，因为两种量都是有境识的实物，所以不是遮止同一性的他异性。从一个境的角度来看，不是同一，因为是分别和非分别的境不同，从本体不同的角度来看，不是他异，因为是识。因此，在没有区分的情况下，一般而言不是同一和他异。第二，自宗。因此，自宗在有境心的本体上是同一的，相对于拉惹的火来说是比量，相对于识的本体来说是现量。从境的角度来看，是现 隐的区别。第三，辩驳。对此，比量不是境的颠倒，而是对境的分别心，并且现量的差别自证现量是同一的，因此不是心，并且与现量是他异的，从辩驳的过失中解脱。第三，数量确定。其他宗派将量分为一到六种，但在此，由于所量是自相和总义或者现隐两种而确定数量，因此衡量它的量也只有两种，遮止了多于或少于此的数量，即少于一种，因为比量是量，并且不需要多，因为凡是量都包含在这两种之中。第四，词义。关于名称的意义，一般而言，名称的解释是基于原因的名称，如一切智者；以及基于作用的原因，如瓶子，有两种。对此，基在那里的解释和作用两者在一切方面都是相违的，即有作用但永远不可能有解释，如牧羊女和食油雀；解释和作用两者完全不相违，如识和一切智者；有时旱生的莲花被称为水生是相违的；有时水生的莲花被称为水生是不相违的，有四种分类，同样，现量的梵语是pratyakṣa（梵文天城体：प्रत्यक्ष，梵文罗马拟音：pratyakṣa，汉语字面意思：现量），翻译成“根所依”的意思，解释是依赖于根，作用是作用于所有执持自相的识。其中，根识和意识两者都有两种。瑜伽现量和自证现量只有作用。根识的错乱 可以解释，但不起作用。比量是anumāna（梵文天城体：अनुमान，梵文罗马拟音：anumāna，汉语字面意思：比量），是随之衡量或推测，因为从相中见到事物，所以解释和作用两者都有。对于这些，
English
It is unreasonable because both valid cognitions are entities of the object-possessing consciousness, so it is not the otherness that negates identity. From the perspective of one object, it is not identical because the objects of conceptual and non-conceptual are different, and from the perspective of different entities, it is not other because it is consciousness. Therefore, without distinguishing, generally speaking, it is neither identical nor other. Second, the self-view. Therefore, the self-view is identical in the essence of the object-possessing mind, it is inference in relation to the fire of Laja, and it is direct perception in relation to the essence of consciousness. From the perspective of the object, it is the distinction between direct and hidden. Third, refuting arguments. In this regard, inference is not the inversion of the object, but the conceptual mind towards the object, and the difference of direct perception, self-cognizant direct perception, is the same, so it is not mind, and it is other than direct perception, thus freed from the fault of arguing. Third, the determination of number. Other schools divide valid cognition into one to six types, but here, since the object to be measured is determined to be two, either self-characteristic and general meaning or direct and hidden, therefore the valid cognition that measures it is also only two, negating the number more or less than this, that is, less than one, because inference is valid cognition, and more is not needed, because whatever is valid cognition is included in these two. Fourth, the meaning of words. Regarding the meaning of names, generally speaking, the explanation of names is based on the cause, such as the all-knowing; and the cause of action, such as the pot, there are two types. In this regard, the explanation and action based there are contradictory in all aspects, that is, there is action but there can never be an explanation, such as the shepherdess and the oil-drinking sparrow; the explanation and action are not contradictory at all, such as consciousness and the all-knowing; sometimes the dry-born lotus is called water-born, which is contradictory; sometimes the water-born lotus is called water-born, which is not contradictory, there are four types of classification, similarly, the Sanskrit of direct perception is pratyakṣa (梵文天城体：प्रत्यक्ष，梵文罗马拟音：pratyakṣa，汉语字面意思：现量), which is translated as "root-dependent", the explanation is that it depends on the root, and the action is to act on all consciousnesses that hold the self-characteristic. Among them, both root consciousness and mind consciousness have both. Yoga direct perception and self-cognizant direct perception only have action. The confusion of root consciousness can be explained, but does not act. Inference is anumāna (梵文天城体：अनुमान，梵文罗马拟音：anumāna，汉语字面意思：比量), which is to measure or infer accordingly, because seeing things from the sign, so both explanation and action are present. For these,