Chinese
如果说可以通过现量来遣除，那么对于从来没有见过人造作的山等形状，用什么来推断呢？如果说也是那样来推断，那是不合理的。因为山岭等与人造作的、具有随顺人造作的形状的瓶子等不同，仔细观察，山岭等物体所具有的形状，仅仅是与“形状”这个词的用法相同而已，除此之外没有其他不同之处。仅仅因为词语相同就推断是人造作的，是不合理的。因为人造作和形状之间，如果没有不俱生则不生的联系，就无法成立，因为即使不是人特意造作的，有形状也没有矛盾。如果作为理由的“相”与所要证明的“法”没有联系，那么什么也无法成立，就像不以与火相关的烟的特殊灰色物质为理由，而仅仅以泥土、蒸汽等灰色物质来推断火一样。因此，如果没有不误认为是人造作的特殊理由，那么仅仅凭借形状是什么也无法成立的。那么，所说的从特殊形状可以推断是人造作的是什么呢？形状上人造作的特殊之处是什么呢？如果说仅仅是形状依赖于物质的排列而被命名，所以在此之上存在不会混淆的特殊之处，那绝对不是。那么是什么呢？是物质排列的特殊之处依赖于人的行为，即具有作用的那些，是具有人造作特殊之处的形状，例如像烟与火一样与人相关联。因为在世间上可以见到这种依赖关系，所以对此不需要其他的考察。凡是不依赖于人造作，而是从因缘聚合而生的尖锐的荆棘和花朵的形状等，与人的行为无关，就像柱子和瓶子无关一样。如果认为对于这些，隐蔽的作者自在天也造作了，那是不成立的。因为这些是从各自的因缘而生的，自在天什么也没有造作，这将在下面进行驳斥。第二，太过分的过失是：如前所述，由于联系的原因，所要证明的法……
English
If it is said that it can be eliminated by direct perception, then how can one infer the shapes of mountains, etc., which have never been seen as made by humans? If it is said that it is inferred in the same way, it is not reasonable. Because mountains and the like are different from pots and other objects made by humans that have shapes that follow human actions. Upon careful examination, the shape possessed by objects such as mountains and continents is only similar in the usage of the word "shape," and there is no other difference. It is unreasonable to infer that it is made by humans merely because the words are the same. Because if there is no connection of "not arising without co-existence" between human creation and shape, it cannot be established, because even if it is not intentionally made by humans, there is no contradiction in having a shape. If the "sign" as the reason and the "object to be proven" have no connection, then nothing can be established, just as one infers fire merely from gray substances such as soil and steam, without taking the special gray substance of smoke related to fire as the reason. Therefore, if there is no special reason not to mistake it as made by humans, then nothing can be established merely by shape. Then, what is it that is said to be able to infer human creation from a special shape? What is the special aspect of human creation in shape? If it is said that shape is merely named based on the arrangement of matter, so there is a special aspect on top of it that will not be confused, that is definitely not the case. Then what is it? It is the special aspect of the arrangement of matter that depends on human action, that is, those that have function, are shapes that have the special aspect of human creation, for example, like smoke and fire are related to humans. Because this dependence can be seen in the world, no other examination is needed for this. Whatever does not depend on human creation, but arises from the aggregation of causes and conditions, such as the sharp thorns and the shapes of flowers, is unrelated to human action, just as pillars and pots are unrelated. If it is thought that for these, the hidden creator, Ishvara, also created them, that is not established. Because these arise from their respective causes and conditions, and Ishvara did not create anything, this will be refuted below. Secondly, the fault of being too extreme is: As mentioned earlier, due to the reason of connection, the object to be proven...
Chinese
如果不是那样修行，而是看到某些法具有某种原因，就以仅仅与此相似的方式，推断其为先前的原因所生，那么，既然陶工能够制造花瓶等泥土的某些形态，那么也会成立所有泥土的形态都是他所造，因此蚁穴也成立是由那个陶工所造。如果认为陶工制造了某些泥土的形态，并不能因此认为所有的泥土形态都是他所造，那么，即使某些花瓶等的形状是人所造，又怎么能确定所有的形状都是人所造呢？即使不依赖于人特意产生的努力，也能成立各自从自己的因缘中那样产生。第三，像这样区分人所造和非人所造的形状，并将形状作为标志来驳斥，这就像用“果相同的遮破”来进行驳斥一样，如果说这与导师陈那所说的一样，那是不一样的。因为，为了证明声音是无常的，由于它是所作性，将果，也就是因缘所生的事物作为标志时，不需要区分所作的差别，普遍也能成立，仅仅因为是所作性就能成立无常。但是，以这种方式用所作性来证明无常时，其他外道认为，标志所作性与声音和花瓶等的关系是不同的，因此标志所作性也会变得不同。这样一来，声音的所作性在花瓶上不成立，因此在同品例中没有后随性。花瓶的所作性在声音上没有作为法性的成立，并且非二者的所作性在任何地方都不确定，因此像这样说这不是正确的标志，这种过失陈述被认为是“果相同的遮破”或者像是驳斥。即使说这种不成立和没有后随性，也不能推翻正确的理由，因此是遮破。所谓“果相同”，意思是果是声音，表示果是声音，像勤奋产生和所作性这样的词语就是果。当放置这些词语时，与其他相似的理由相似，也就是用相似的推理来陈述过失，这被称为“果相同的遮破”。
English
If one does not practice in that way, but rather, seeing that certain phenomena have a certain cause, infers that they are produced by a previous cause simply by focusing on their similarity, then, since it is established that a potter can create certain forms of clay, such as vases, it would also be established that all forms of clay are made by him, and therefore it would also be established that anthills are made by that potter. If one thinks that because a potter makes certain forms of clay, it does not follow that all forms of clay are made by him, then, even if some shapes of vases etc. are made by humans, how can it be certain that all shapes are made by humans? Even without relying on the effort specifically produced by humans, it can be established that each arises in that way from its own causes and conditions. Thirdly, distinguishing between shapes made by humans and those not made by humans, and using shape as a sign to refute, this is like refuting with a "fruit-similar refutation," and if it is said that this is the same as what the teacher Dignāga said, it is not the same. Because, in order to prove that sound is impermanent, since it is a product, when the result, i.e., something produced by causes and conditions, is taken as a sign, it is not necessary to distinguish the differences of production, and it can be established universally, since impermanence can be established simply because it is a product. However, when proving impermanence by means of production in this way, other non-Buddhists think that the relationship between the sign of production and things like sound and vases is different, therefore the sign of production will also become different. In this way, the production of sound is not established in vases, so there is no subsequent concomitance in the similar example. The production of vases is not established as a property of sound, and the production that is not of either is uncertain anywhere, so saying that such a thing is not a correct sign, this fault statement is considered a "fruit-similar refutation" or like a refutation. Even if one says such non-establishment and lack of subsequent concomitance, one cannot refute the correct reason, therefore it is a refutation. The so-called "fruit-similar" means that the fruit is sound, indicating that the fruit is sound, and words like diligence-born and produced are the fruit. When these words are placed, they are similar to other seemingly valid reasons, that is, stating faults with similar reasoning, which is called a "fruit-similar refutation."
Tibetan
བྱས་པའོ། །དེ་ལྟག་ཆོད་ཡིན་ཏེ་སྒྲ་དང་བུམ་པའི་ཁྱད་པར་ཕྱེ་མི་དགོས་པར། སྤྱིར་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་ན་མི་རྟག་པར་འགྲུབ་ངེས་ཀྱང་དེ་ལྟར་མི་འགྲུབ་པར་བསྟན་པ་ནི་སུན་འབྱིན་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཚིག་ཙམ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེས་ན་དབྱིབས་ལ་གཉིས་སུ་མ་ཕྱེས་པར་དབྱིབས་ཙམ་གྱིས་སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པར་འགྲུབ་ན། དེ་མི་འགྲུབ་པར་བསྟན་པ་ལྟག་ཆོད་དུ་འགྱུར་ཀྱང་དབྱིབས་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་དབྱེ་བ་མ་བྱས་པར་དབྱིབས་ཙམ་ནི་ སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པ་ལ་མི་འཁྲུལ་བའི་འབྲེལ་བ་མ་གྲུབ་པས་འབྲས་མཚུངས་ཀྱི་ལྟག་ཆོད་དང་འདྲ་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གཉིས་པ་ལ། དབྱིབས་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ཙམ་རྟགས་མིན་དཔེ། །ཡིན་ན་ཧ་ཅང་ཐལ་བའོ། །དང་པོ། ཆོས་སོ་སོའི་རང་རང་གི་རིགས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་མི་འདྲ་བ་ལ་རྗོད་བྱེད་དུ་གྲུབ་པ་ཡི་སྒྲ་ཡི་སྤྱི༷་སྟེ་ཐུན་མོང་གི་མིང་ནི་ཡུལ་བརྗོད་བྱ་གང་ལ་ཡོད་པ་ཙམ་མཐོང་བ་ལས་རིགས་གཞན་དང་གཞན་དུ་སྒྲུབ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ནི་མི་རིགས་ཏེ་དཔེར་ན། ངག་དང་ཕྱོགས་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཆོས་ཅན། གོ་ཞེས་པ་ཉིད་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ན་རྭ་ཅན་ཡིན་ཞེས་པ་བཞིན་ནོ། །དེ་དག་ལ་སྤྱི་མིང་དུ་གོ་སྒྲ་འཇུག་ཀྱང་མིང་དེ་ཞུགས་པ་ཙམ་གྱིས་དེ་ཡི་མིང་ཅན་གཞན་དུ་གྲུབ་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ། །ཇི་སྐད་དུ། ངག་ཕྱོགས་ས་དང་འོད་ཟེར་དང་། །མཐོ་རིས་མིག་དང་རྡོ་རྗེ་དང་། །བ་ལང་ཆུ་སྟེ་དོན་དགུ་ལ། །མཁས་པས་གོ་སྒྲ་ངེས་པར་གཟུང་། །ཞེས་གྲགས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དབྱིབས་ཙམ་གྱི་སྒྲ་སོགས་ཀྱིས་སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པར་སྒྲུབ་པའང་ཚུལ་དེ་དང་འདྲའོ། །གཉིས་པ་ནི། སྐྱེས་བུས་བརྗོད་པར་འདོད་པའི་གཞན་དབང་གིས་འཇུག་པ་ཅན་ཡིན་གྱི་རང་དབང་གིས་འཇུག་པ་ཅན་མིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། སྒྲ་རྣམས་ནི་ཡུལ་གང་ལའང་སྦྱར་དུ་མེད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པས་ན་སྒྲ་ཙམ་དེ་ཡོད་པས་ནི་དེའི་མིང་ཅན་གྱི་དོན་དེ་གྲུབ་ན་བུམ་སོགས་དོན་གང་ཡང་རུང་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱིས་ནི་སྣམ་སོགས་གཞན་གྱི་དགོས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་གྲུབ་པར་ཐལ་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན་སྐྱེས་བུ་ལ་ཉི་མ་ཞེས་པའི་མིང་ཡོད་ན་དེས་སྣང་བར་ཡང་བྱེད་པར་ཐལ་ལོ། །གཉིས་པ། སྒྲ་ཙམ་མཚུངས་པས་དོན་མཚུངས་པར་སྒྲུབ་མི་ནུས་པར་བསྟན་པའི་རིགས་པ་འདིས་ནི་སེར་སྐྱ་བ་དང་ལ་སོགས་ཀྱི་སྒྲས་གཅེར་བུ་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ལྟར་སྣང་བ། མི་རྟག་པ་དང་སྐྱེ་བ་ཅན་ཡིན་པ་སོགས་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར་ཡང་བློ་དང་བདེ་བ་སོགས་སེམས་མེད་པ་དང་ནང་མ་ཡིན་པ་སོགས་ སུ་སྒྲུབ་པ་དང་། ཤུན་པ་བཤུས་ན་ནི་འཆི་བའི་ཕྱིར་ཤིང་སེམས་ལྡན་དུ་འདོད་པའང་མི་རིགས་པར་དོན་གྱིས་དཔྱད
Chinese
是所作。那是颠倒，因为不必区分声音和瓶子的差别。一般而言，如果是所作，必定成立为无常，但如果显示那样不成立，那只是无法驳斥的言辞而已。因此，如果不对形状进行区分，仅凭形状就能成立为由人所作，如果显示那样不成立，就会变成颠倒，但是如果没有对形状进行区分，仅凭形状，对于由人所作，由于没有成立不混淆的关系，所以不像果相同的颠倒。第二，形状的声音仅仅是因的例子。如果是，则太过分了。第一，对于各个法各自的种类的差别，作为能说而成立的声音的共同之名，仅仅是见到事物所指的处所，就认为能成立其他种类，这是不合理的，例如，语和方向等法，因为是“牛”的自性，所以就像“有角”一样。对于那些，虽然“牛”的声音作为共同之名而存在，但仅仅因为那个名字存在，也不会成立为那个名字的其他事物。如是说：语、方向、地和光芒，高处、眼睛和金刚，牛、水这九个意义，智者应确定地理解为“牛”的声音。据说仅凭形状的声音等就能成立为人所作，也与那个道理相同。第二，因为是由人所说，是受他支配而存在，而不是自主而存在。声音等不是不能与任何事物相连，因此，如果仅仅因为有那个声音，就能成立那个名字的事物，那么瓶等任何事物都能成立为毡等其他的所有需要，例如，如果人有“太阳”这个名字，那么也太过于能照亮了。第二，通过显示仅仅声音相同无法成立意义相同，这个道理也驳斥了像耆那教徒那样，以青莲等声音作为成立裸体派的理由，以及因为无常和有生等，也成立为无心和非内等，以及如果剥皮就会死亡，因此认为树木有心，这些都是不合理的，应该从意义上进行辨析。
English
It is made. That is a reversal, because it is not necessary to distinguish the difference between sound and pot. In general, if it is made, it must be established as impermanent, but if it is shown that it is not established in that way, it is only a word that cannot be refuted. Therefore, if the shape is not distinguished into two, but only the shape can be established as made by a person, if it is shown that it is not established, it will become a reversal, but if the shape is not distinguished into special categories, only the shape is not mistaken for being made by a person, because the relationship is not established, so it is not like the reversal of the same fruit. Second, the sound of the shape is only an example of a sign. If so, it is too much. First, for the differences of each dharma's own kind, the common name of the sound that is established as the speaker is only seeing the place where the object is referred to, and thinking that it can establish other kinds, which is unreasonable, for example, speech and direction, etc., because it is the nature of "cow", it is like "having horns". For those, although the sound of "cow" exists as a common name, it will not be established as other things of that name just because that name exists. As it is said: speech, direction, earth and light, high place, eyes and vajra, cow, water, these nine meanings, the wise should definitely understand as the sound of "cow". It is said that establishing that it is made by a person only by the sound of the shape is also the same as that reason. Second, because it is said by a person, it exists under the control of others, not independently. Sounds, etc., are not unable to be connected to anything, therefore, if only because there is that sound, the thing of that name can be established, then any things such as pots can be established as all the needs of others such as felt, for example, if a person has the name "sun", then it is too much to be able to illuminate. Second, by showing that the same sound alone cannot establish the same meaning, this reason also refutes the Jains, who use the sound of blue lotus, etc., as the reason for establishing the naked sect, and because of impermanence and birth, etc., it is also established as mindless and non-inner, etc., and if the bark is peeled off, it will die, so thinking that trees have minds is unreasonable, and should be analyzed from the meaning.