Chinese
因为是可靠的，所以声音如何理解事物，世间的名称也随之运用，因此名称只是表示事物，不需要其他理由来考察。这样，一般来说，凭借普遍的共识，以及声音表达方式的能力，声音是追随表达意愿，具有断除正反两方面，确定所欲对象的结果，因此会变成各种各样的区分。像这样有三种区分方式，因此，在此处，在一方之上成立法的方式是，不具备的进行区分，因此虽然在有法的事物特性上成立，但仅仅变成有法的事物所特有的法，因此不具备在相似的例子上随同的过失，或者说没有，因为不区分其他所具备的。第三，将一方之法分为九种的必要是什么呢？为了通过例子说明，使自性和结果的两种正确的论证成立，而将声音作为无常的标志，以及陈述努力所生的两种理由。并且，为了了解与此相反的两种矛盾，而将前述的两种论证安立在声音是常法上。因为存在仅仅成立随同和遣返的论证被认为是正确的论证，所以因为对于此是否是论证存在争论，为了避免这样的错误，为了了解不是论证，而安立了可听的差别和普遍的可测量的作为标志，从而安立了声音是常法的两种论证。也就是说，如果仅仅在所有相似的一方成立随同，就是正确的论证，那么以可测量来论证声音是常法也会变成正确。如果仅仅在所有不相似的一方没有见到，就是成立遣返周遍的正确论证，那么以可听来论证声音是常法，也会变成正确的论证。这是为了了解，如果标志能够成立所要成立的，那么也能成立无常，因此不会与矛盾相混淆的量会变成可能，从而显示危害。剩余的三种，仅仅成立随同是不够的，为了成立遣返的周遍而进行论证。
English
Because it is reliable, the worldly terms also apply following how sound understands things, so terms only represent things and do not need to be examined for other reasons. Thus, in general, by virtue of common consensus, and the power of sound expression, sound follows the intention of expression, and has the result of cutting off both positive and negative aspects and determining the desired object, so it becomes various distinctions. Since there are three ways of distinguishing like this, therefore, in this case, the way to establish Dharma on one side is to distinguish what is not possessed, so although it is established on the characteristic of the subject, it only becomes the Dharma unique to the subject, so it does not have the fault of not following similar examples, or it does not exist, because it does not distinguish what others possess. Third, what is the need to divide the Dharma of one side into nine types? In order to establish the two correct proofs of nature and result through examples, sound is taken as a sign of impermanence, and the two reasons for stating effort are born. And, in order to understand the two contradictions that are opposite to this, the aforementioned two arguments are established on the sound being constant Dharma. Because there is an argument that only the established following and returning are considered correct arguments, so because there is a dispute as to whether this is an argument, in order to avoid such errors, in order to understand that it is not an argument, the audible difference and the universally measurable are established as signs, thereby establishing the two arguments that sound is constant Dharma. That is to say, if only following is established on all similar sides, it is a correct argument, then arguing that sound is constant Dharma by measurement will also become correct. If only not seeing on all dissimilar sides is a correct argument for establishing return pervasion, then arguing that sound is constant Dharma by hearing will also become a correct argument. This is to understand that if the sign can establish what is to be established, then it can also establish impermanence, so the measure that is not confused with contradiction will become possible, thereby showing harm. The remaining three are not enough to establish only following, and the argument is made to establish the pervasion of return.
Chinese
仅仅见到随行就足够的话，因为非勤作所生，故为无常。这会成为能立，因为在顺品闪电和虚空中，随行于闪电。如果认为仅仅成立随行，但因为不能从异品勤作所生瓶子等中返回，所以不能成为正因的话。因为是常，故非所触。这在顺品微尘和虚空中，进入虚空，并且从异品乐和瓶子等中，从乐中返回。如果认为因为在顺品中没有周遍的进入，所以不是真正的相的话。因为是勤作所生，故为无常。这会成为真正的正因，因为在顺品瓶子等一切勤作所生中周遍的进入，并且从异品闪电和虚空中返回。因此，为了知晓在没有真正成立返回的周遍之前，即使像在例子中见到随行，也不是正因。第二，处于中间，对于上、下、中三者的必要进行分别解说。解说两个真正的必要。解说一个不决定的必要。第一，有共同和不共同各自的必要，以及显示两者的必要。第一，有真实和遣除对其的疑惑。第一，在果相的例子中，勤作所生和，在自性相中，说作的意义。第一，有真实和遣除对其的争论。第一。如所作是无常，这样的自性之相有些不是由其他的，即果之相不是按照将自己的所知安立于所立之法的方式，成立周遍相等，因为有烟则周遍有火在前，但是仅仅有火则没有烟周遍，因为仅仅是因则可能会对成立果产生错乱。同样，词和表达意愿等，对于一切果相都是同类的，因此果相是在顺品例子中以有无两种方式进入的，如厨房等有火则见到烟，但是不是有火就周遍见到烟。 因此，以勤作所生来成立无常，这也是在顺品闪电和瓶子中，在瓶子上见到，在闪电上没有见到，是具有两种部分的，所以是果相的例子。
English
If merely seeing the concomitance is sufficient, then, 'because it is not produced by effort, it is impermanent.' This will become the probans, because in the homogenous class of lightning and space, it follows lightning. If it is thought that even if mere concomitance is established, it is not a valid reason because it does not revert from the heterogeneous class of effort-produced pot, etc., then, 'because it is permanent, it is not tangible.' This, in the homogenous class of atoms and space, enters into space, and in the heterogeneous class of happiness and pot, etc., it reverts from happiness. If it is thought that because there is no pervasive entry into the homogenous class, it is not a correct sign, then, 'because it is produced by effort, it is impermanent.' This will become a correct reason, because it pervasively enters into all effort-produced things such as pots in the homogenous class, and it reverts from lightning and space in the heterogeneous class. Therefore, it is for the purpose of knowing that until the pervasive reversion is correctly established, even if it appears like following the example, it is not a valid reason. Second, explaining in detail the necessity of the three, upper, lower, and middle, which are in the middle. Explaining the necessity of the two correct ones. Explaining the necessity of the one uncertain one. First, there are the individual necessities of the common and uncommon, and the necessity of showing both. First, there is the actual and the elimination of doubts about it. First, in the example of the effect sign, effort-produced, and in the nature sign, the meaning of saying 'made.' First, there is the actual and the elimination of disputes about it. First. Like 'what is made is impermanent,' some nature signs are not by others, that is, the effect sign is not established as co-extensive in the way of establishing its object of knowledge on the subject to be proven, because if there is smoke, there is fire before, but merely having fire does not pervade having smoke, because merely the cause may lead to confusion in establishing the effect. Similarly, words and expressions of intention, etc., are of the same kind for all effect signs, therefore, the effect sign enters into the homogenous example in two ways, existence and non-existence, like in the kitchen, there is fire and smoke is seen, but it is not pervasive that smoke is seen wherever there is fire. Therefore, establishing impermanence with effort-produced is also in the homogenous class of lightning and pot, seen on the pot, not seen on the lightning, it has two parts, so it is an example of an effect sign.
Chinese
而且，作为果因推理的实际转变方式是，将声音产生后立即出现的听觉认知作为结果，并推断其原因是声音的无常。对此，所有人都同意，以勤作所生来证明无常是自性因。如果作为果的理由，实际上以非常繁琐的方式来证明其转变方式，那么为什么不展示像烟证明火一样的实际果因推理呢？这是因为能够表达包含单方面自性例证，并且关注从勤作中产生的事物，有许多必要条件，例如不可能有常法。那么，为什么这既是自性因，也可以是果因推理呢？原因是，已作和无常的本体同一关系成立，是因为声音是由因缘聚合而成，并且从第二刹那不住留的对立面进行区分，并没有成立本质上的差异。同样，一般来说，因缘聚合而成的特殊之处，即因的差别，是从人的勤作中产生的，并且无常与声音无差别地具有本体同一关系，因此是自性因。然而，并非所有无常都是勤作所生，因此虽然不能将周遍应用于同品，但在声音本身上，勤作所生和无常并没有差别。然而，如果作为果因推理，如果将从勤作中产生的声音本身视为结果，那么在没有勤作之前，声音 不存在，因为看到它从其他因产生，所以声音是先前不存在的新生事物。即使仅仅成立了具有因，但由于勤作等因已经成立，因此不是以果证明因的实际推理。因此，果因推理是间接推论。例如，如果此时将“勤作所生”视为声音本身的法，那么它将变成自性因，因此这是将名称赋予了关注从勤作中产生的听觉认知，即将事物的名称赋予了具有该事物者。如果没有必要，为什么要赋予名称呢？因为有必要。因为已作、生、灭等的范畴也是通过现量成立的，所以这样安立，由于不会混淆具有该事物者，因此除了关注之外，不可能有其他的范畴。
English
Moreover, the actual way of transforming into a result-cause inference is to take the auditory cognition that arises immediately after the sound is produced by effort as the result, and to infer that its cause is the impermanence of sound. On this, everyone agrees that proving impermanence by what is produced by effort is a nature-inference. If it is used as a reason of result, why not show the actual result-cause inference like smoke proving fire, since the way of transforming in that way must be proven with great effort? This is because it is able to represent the example of nature with one aspect, and there are many necessities in focusing on what arises from effort, such as the impossibility of permanence. Then, what is the reason why this is both a nature-inference and can also be a result-cause inference? The reason is that the establishment of the identity relationship between what is made and impermanence is because the sound is compounded by causes and conditions, and there is no difference in essence from separating from the opposite of not staying in the second moment. Similarly, in general, the particular difference of the cause that is compounded by causes and conditions is that it arises from the effort of a person, and impermanence is inseparably related to sound with the same entity, so it is a nature-inference. However, since not all impermanence is produced by effort, although it is not possible to apply pervasion to the homogeneous side, there is no difference between what is produced by effort and impermanence on the sound itself. However, if it is made into a result-cause inference, if the sound itself produced from effort is taken as the result, then before there is no effort, the sound does not exist, because it is seen to arise from other causes, so the sound is a newly produced thing that did not exist before. Even if it is only established that there is a cause, since the cause such as effort has already been established, it is not an actual inference of proving the cause by the result. Therefore, the result-cause inference is an indirect inference. For example, if at this time "produced by effort" is taken as the dharma of the sound itself, then it will become a nature-inference, so this is giving the name to the auditory cognition that focuses on what is produced from effort, that is, giving the name of the thing to the one who has that thing. If there is no need, why give a name? Because there is a need. Because the categories of what is made, arising, ceasing, etc. are also established by direct perception, so it is established in this way, and since the one who has that thing is not confused, there can be no other category than focusing.
Chinese
是为了知晓的缘故。第二是辩驳：对方说，如果那样，所缘的听觉如果是果，可以承认是声音的果，但如何以此成立声音是无常的呢？因为作为常声的果没有相违之处。如果说，勤作是使声音在先前已存在的听觉的境中显现，而不是产生，所以不能作为果因的例子。如果常声产生在勤作未生之前就已存在的境上的听觉，那么它就只会是恒常存在的，而不是舌根等一运作就必然产生的。因为，勤作对于消除常声的遮蔽，以及对于境的根，以及对于境声自身的体性，并非是以各种方式都有利的近取作用。因此，虽然不一定是一运作就确定，但恒常听闻的情况也从未有过，而一运作就必然听闻，所以听闻声音的听觉不可能是常声的果。对此，如果说声音是常，但因遮蔽而未听闻，那么勤作为何不对遮蔽产生作用呢？因为常法没有先后差别，所以被遮蔽和未被遮蔽的状态不可能不同，因此对于无法遮蔽的事物，遮蔽是不可能的，所以消除遮蔽的作用是不存在的。如果认为如同先前存在的瓶子被灯火照亮一样，那么瓶子是无常的，所以在刹那的相续中，遮蔽与未遮蔽是可以成立的，但对于常法来说，这是不可能的。勤作对根产生利益，从而听闻常声也是不合理的，如果常声是因，那么它不会恒常产生自己的果，即听觉，而是依赖于勤作完善的根的俱生缘而偶尔产生，那么它就会失去不可区分的自性。声音自身的体性如果是常，且不能被因缘所区分，那么为何要依赖勤作呢？因此，勤作对于常声产生听觉的作用，连微尘许也不产生。像这样，不依赖因缘的常声，如果想要成为产生自己所缘之心的因，那么在某些时候不产生果，即执持声音的听觉，这是有相违的，所以，勤