English
existence, and there should not be any other dharma in any time or direction other than it. Ultimately, one must recognize "this is only one," and there should not be any object different from oneself. If it exists, then there is a distinguishable part that is not the only object. If even the consciousness that takes itself as its object does not exist, then who can apprehend this only true object? Because it cannot be apprehended. In this way, all kinds of knowable appearances will completely disappear like the horns of a rabbit. Therefore, within the category of knowables, a single truly established dharma cannot be established at all, nor will it be established, nor will it become established, so this variety of appearances that are so clear in time and direction is reasonable. If there is a truly established thing within the category of knowables, then all these knowables will completely disappear. Because no knowable is truly established, the infinite nature of knowable things appears so clearly. Alas! The nature of dharmas is inconceivable and wonderful. Hearing the lion's roar of equality proclaimed by the Tathagata who realized this, the power of the body of wisdom greatly increases, like being able to swallow the boundless sky in one gulp. Who can hold the sword of wisdom in Manjushri's hand and cut off the attachment to phenomena and existence in an instant? Because no dharma is truly established, everything appears, therefore, please generate unwavering faith in the special way of appearing as emptiness and dependent arising. Like this, starting from the reasoning of the scriptures, this reasoning of great emptiness is explained to the fortunate ones by exerting one's own wisdom. The second part, if one does not follow, it is unreasonable. The object is not unconditioned, but momentary, and if one admits that, it shows that there is fault. First, in the previous and subsequent states, if its nature does not appear, then like consciousness, it should be known to be momentary. It is said that if one admits like the second view, in the previous consciousness and subsequent states, the only nature of that object does not appear, then the unconditioned object taken by the previous consciousness when it exists does not exist in the subsequent state of consciousness. The subsequent object does not exist in the previous time. In short, the objects of each consciousness that apprehends the object are each
Chinese
如果是这样，那么就应该追随一个境。如果不是这样，那么非组合之境也是如此。例如，就像刚出生就停止，不在其他时间存在的识一样。有智慧的人应该知道，它不会超出刹那的自性而生起。第二，如果这样承认，那么就指出过失：依赖于缘则成为组合，不依赖则恒常存在或不存在。第一，前前刹那的威力，如果生起，则不会成为非组合，如同心和心所。如是说。这样，各个有境的非组合境各自成立，因此成为刹那。即使这样，那些仍然自以为存在非组合的人，应该问他们：像这样的各个有境所变成的境的非组合，是依赖于缘还是不依赖于缘呢？如果像第一种情况一样，境的非组合依靠自身前前刹那依次生起的威力，后后刹那得以生起，那么，因为是从因和缘所生的事物，所以不会成为非组合，就像组合的心和心所一样。第二，如果刹那在此处，想要自主生起，那么因为不依赖于其他，所以会恒常存在或不存在。如是承认第二种情况。像这样，境的非组合的刹那，在各自成为境的识的各自时间等处，如果想要不依赖于前刹那等缘而自主生起，那么，因为不依赖于其他因，所以只会恒常存在，或者恒常不存在。如果承认一个无因的事物，那么必须成为恒常存在或不存在。如果确定地说，如果一个无因的事物可能存在，那么为什么它不会恒常不变地存在呢？其他事物先前存在而后来不存在，是因为因反转的力量导致果反转，因此存在存在和不存在的状态。而这个没有因，所以它不会反转。
English
If it is so, then one should follow one object. If not, then the uncompounded object is also like that. For example, just like the consciousness that stops immediately after birth and does not exist at other times. Those with wisdom should know that it does not arise beyond the nature of the moment. Second, if one admits this, then point out the faults: depending on conditions, it becomes compounded; not depending on it, it becomes either permanent or non-existent. First, the power of the previous moment, if it arises, then it will not become uncompounded, just like mind and mental factors. It is said like this. Thus, the uncompounded objects of each object-possessor are established separately, so it becomes momentary. Even so, those who still presume that there is an uncompounded object should be asked: do these uncompounded objects that have become objects of each object-possessor depend on conditions or not? If, like the first case, the uncompounded object relies on the power of its own previous moments arising in sequence, so that the later moments can arise, then, because it is a thing born from cause and condition, it will not become uncompounded, just like the compounded mind and mental factors. Second, if the moments here want to arise autonomously, then because they do not depend on others, they will be either permanent or non-existent. Thus, the second case is admitted. Like this, the moments of the uncompounded object, in the respective times of the consciousness that makes it its object, if one wants to arise autonomously without depending on conditions such as the previous moment, then, because it does not depend on other causes at all, it will only be either permanent or non-existent. If one admits a causeless thing, then it must become either permanent or non-existent. If it is determined that if a causeless thing could exist, then why would it not exist permanently without changing? Other things that existed before and do not exist later are because the power of the reversed cause causes the result to be reversed, so there is a state of existence and non-existence. But this has no cause, so it will not reverse.
Chinese
因為對我來說，自己的本性一旦存在，未來也不可能改變。沒有出現的時期也不可能存在。其他的物質沒有產生，是因為因緣不具足而耽擱了。因為這個不需要因緣，為什麼不會永遠存在呢？同樣地，也必須存在於各個方向。或者，這些存在的物質都是各自的因緣所造成的。就像沒有播種之前，雖然看似有收成，卻無法享用。但是，如果播種了，收成就能夠顯現出來。同樣地，取決於因緣的物質，藉由因緣的力量就能夠顯現和呈現。然而，沒有因緣的那些，不會追隨因緣，所以永遠無法存在，也不應該存在，就像兔子的角等等。因此，那些因為擔心無為的剎那會變成有為，而主張不需要因緣的人，必須承認恆常存在的剎那，或者從未恆常存在的眾多剎那，沒有比這更大的矛盾了，簡直是笑話。因此，僅僅將排除物質的排除他者的分別影像，當作是真實存在的無為法，只是一種自欺欺人。如果事物本身的本性，連在名言上都沒有作用的能力，更何況是在勝義上成立呢？因此，對於具有作用能力的物質，以及在無害的根識前顯現的法，對它們產生執著的眾生是合理的。對於沒有顯現，也無法以量成立的常法等等，將心寄託於其上的人，是非常不合理的。第三，總結對常法的破斥：沒有作用能力，對此希求，考察又有何用？太監是美是醜，貪欲者們考察又有何益？如是說道。像這樣，對於常我、自在天、無為法等等，只是假立，事物本身卻沒有絲毫作用能力的東西，以想要事物成為造作者等等的心，強行考察它是否存在又有何用呢？例如，對於無法行淫的太監，以這個是美是醜為目標，對於具有淫欲並且追求的
English
Because for me, once one's own nature exists, it is impossible to change in the future. It is also impossible for a time when this did not occur to exist. Other things do not arise because the causes and conditions are not complete and are delayed. Because this does not require causes and conditions, why would it not always exist? Similarly, it must also exist in all directions. Or, these existing things are all caused by their respective causes and conditions. Just as before sowing seeds, although there seems to be a harvest, it cannot be enjoyed. However, if seeds are sown, the harvest can be manifested. Similarly, things that depend on causes and conditions can be manifested and presented by the power of causes and conditions. However, those without causes and conditions do not follow causes and conditions, so they can never exist and should not exist, like the horns of rabbits, etc. Therefore, those who claim that unconditioned moments do not need causes and conditions because they are afraid that they will become conditioned must admit either eternally existing moments or many moments that have never been eternal. There is no greater contradiction than this, and it is simply a joke. Therefore, merely taking the image of other-exclusion that excludes things as a truly existing unconditioned dharma is just self-deception. If the nature of the thing itself does not even have the ability to function nominally, what about being established ultimately? Therefore, it is reasonable for beings to be attached to things that have the ability to function and to the dharmas that appear before harmless sense consciousness. It is very unreasonable for those who do not appear and cannot be established by valid cognition to place their minds on permanent things, etc. Third, the conclusion of refuting permanent things: There is no ability to function, what is the use of examining it if you desire it? Whether an eunuch is beautiful or ugly, what benefit is there for those who are greedy? Thus it is said. Like this, for things like permanent self, Ishvara, unconditioned dharmas, etc., which are merely posited and the thing itself does not have the slightest ability to function, what is the use of forcibly examining whether it exists with a mind that wants the thing to be a creator, etc.? For example, targeting an eunuch who cannot engage in sexual intercourse, with the goal of whether this is beautiful or ugly, for those who have sexual desire and pursue it,