Chinese
因为能够成立的缘故，通晓事物实况作用的智者认为，瓶等从前不明显，不能生起眼识，后来由于共同的因缘和合，与先前相反而生起，所以认为从前不明显，后来才明显。如果认为有其他不同的生起，那么施设所明和能明的名称才是合理的。你所认为的能明，对于没有关联和普遍变化的事物，前后没有任何差别，那么能明、所说和所明等，对于将自己的意义安立为能明，做了什么呢？实际上什么也没做。因为从前不明显的时候无法改变，所以它也和那时一样保持不变。例如，如果瓶子在先前不明显的状态下无法改变，那么灯光和聚合也会像以前一样变得不明显。这样，能明对于恒常的所明没有任何照明的作用，那么因为什么理由认为它能照明呢？将所明安立为能明没有任何理由，就像认为酥油灯能照明食肉者和妓女的儿子等一样。此外，如果关联不是仅仅由分别念假立，而是成为事物本身，那么这样也可以。如果是这样，声音、意义和关联这三者，就会像柱子、瓶子、布匹一样，成为不同的事物。因此，执著它们的意识也会以执著不同的方式而存在，不会将名义和意义混合而执著为一体。如果是这样，事物存在的关联对于名义和意义的关联有什么帮助呢？它自己会成为独立的。另外一个过失是，即使关联是事物，但如果它作为名义和意义关联的基础，那么就像声音和所说各自的自相不同一样，如果存在如此多的事物，那么一个瓶子的声音就无法理解所有的瓶子意义，而且许多人说一个瓶子也不合理。如果关联只有一个，那么名称就不会施加于不同的瓶子上，而只会施加于一个整体上，等等，有无尽的过失。如果关联是事物，但与名义和意义是不同的事
English
Because it can be established, wise people who understand the function of the reality of things believe that things like pots, which were not clear before and could not generate eye consciousness, later arise in reverse from the previous state due to the combination of common causes and conditions, so they believe that what was not clear before becomes clear later. If it is believed that there are other different arising, then it is reasonable to apply the terms "object to be illuminated" and "illuminator." Your concept of the illuminator, for things that have no connection or universal change, there is no difference between before and after, so what do the illuminator, the spoken, and the illuminated do to establish their own meaning as the illuminator? In fact, nothing was done. Because it cannot be changed from the time when it was not clear before, it remains the same as it was. For example, if the pot cannot be changed from the state where it was not clear before, then the lamplight and the assembly will also become unclear as before. In this way, the illuminator does not have any illuminating effect on the constant object to be illuminated, so for what reason is it believed that it can illuminate it? There is no reason to establish the object to be illuminated as the illuminator, just like believing that a butter lamp can illuminate meat eaters and the sons of prostitutes, etc. Furthermore, if the connection is not merely fabricated by conceptual thought, but becomes the thing itself, then that is fine. If this is the case, the three of sound, meaning, and connection will become different things like pillars, pots, and cloths. Therefore, the consciousness that grasps them will also exist in a way that grasps differently, and will not mix names and meanings and grasp them as one. If this is the case, what help does the existing connection of things have for the connection of names and meanings? It will become independent on its own. Another fault is that even if the connection is a thing, if it serves as the basis for the connection of names and meanings, then just as the self-characteristics of sound and what is said are different, if there are so many things as connections, then one sound of a pot cannot understand all the meanings of pots, and it is unreasonable for many people to say one pot. If there is only one connection, then the name will not be applied to different pots, but will only be applied to one whole, etc., there are endless faults. If the connection is a thing, but it is different from names and meanings,
Chinese
如果说不是，那么声音和意义的自性就变成同一个了。因为这两者是不同的，所以不会有任何关系。如果这两者不是不同的，那么说“火”就会烧嘴，但前者也认为这两者是不同的。如果认为声音和意义既不是不同的也不是不不同的，那么，对于任何事物来说，所谓“一”和“不同”之外，不存在第三种事物，因为这两者是互相排斥的，所以中间不可能有第三者。如果说有，但那是超越感官的，就像眼识等等一样，那么，感官是随着果识的来去而安立的。但这不是从果的角度来说的，因为如果关系本身不明显，就不可能明显地看到它的结果，所以说感官的对境是超越的也是没有意义的。因此，所谓“关系”既不是一也不是异。声音和意义两者是事物本质不同的、不混合的，因此，虽然意义上没有关系，但将名称和意义混合，说“这是这个的名称，这是这个的所指”，这种看似关系的东西是突然产生的分别念所造成的。因此，所谓“关系”是分别念假立存在的，或者是假立存在，如果作为其他实有存在，或者作为存在的实有，那么关系自己的本体已经存在，它又如何依赖于其他声音和意义，或者它又如何成为其他声音和意义之间的关系呢？就像柱子和瓶子，从不同的事物中产生的布匹，它既不依赖于柱子和瓶子，也不会成为柱子和瓶子的关系一样。因此，虽然名称和意义之间没有任何实际关系，但由于习惯于将所命名的名称视为在该事物上成立的分别念的力量，从而错误地将名称视为意义，将意义视为名称，如果不存在混合执持名称和意义的分别念，就不可能从名称中理解意义。不仅如此，名称、词语和语言本身也是分别念所虚构的。因为，经文中的每一个单独的字母都不能显示该经文的意义。由于字母排列顺序的差异，比如“萨ra(藏文)”表示“海”，而“ra萨(藏文)”表示“味道”等，对于任何意义，都通过不同的字母排列方式来表示，并称其为那个的名称。
English
If you say it is not, then the self-nature of sound and meaning would become the same. Because these two are different, there would be no relationship whatsoever. If these two are not different, then saying "fire" would burn the mouth, but the former also believes that these two are different. If you think that sound and meaning are neither different nor not different, then, for any object, there is no third object other than "one" and "different," because these two are mutually exclusive, so there cannot be a third in between. If you say there is, but it is beyond the senses, like eye consciousness and so on, then the senses are established by the coming and going of the fruit consciousness. But this is not from the perspective of the fruit, because if the relationship itself is not obvious, it is impossible to clearly see its result, so saying that the object of the senses is transcendent is also meaningless. Therefore, the so-called "relationship" is neither one nor different. Sound and meaning are two different and unmixed essences of things, so although there is no relationship in meaning, mixing names and meanings and saying "this is the name of this, this is what this refers to," this seemingly related thing is caused by sudden conceptual thought. Therefore, the so-called "relationship" is either hypothetically established by conceptual thought, or hypothetically exists. If it exists as another real entity, or as a real entity of existence, then the relationship's own entity already exists, how can it depend on other sounds and meanings, or how can it become the relationship between other sounds and meanings? Just like a cloth made from different objects from a pillar and a vase, it neither depends on the pillar and the vase, nor does it become the relationship between the pillar and the vase. Therefore, although there is no actual relationship between name and meaning, due to the power of conceptual thought that is accustomed to regarding the named name as established on that object, it is mistaken to regard the name as meaning and the meaning as name. If there is no conceptual thought that mixes and holds names and meanings, it is impossible to understand the meaning from the name. Moreover, names, words, and language themselves are also fabricated by conceptual thought. Because each individual letter in a scripture cannot show the meaning of that scripture. Due to the difference in the order of letters, for example, "sa ra (藏文)" means "sea," and "ra sa (藏文)" means "taste," etc. For any meaning, it is expressed through different letter arrangements, and it is called the name of that.
Chinese
是假立的，比如对数字的差别，安立为星、太阳等等。同样，词等，也就是一切言语，也只是由分别假立而成立，如果不是由分别假立，就不能成立自己的体性，所以是无实有的，因为没有聚集名称，到那之间给予连接的因缘，就会出现如“瓶子是无常”这样的词。聚集多个词语，就会出现显示当时意义的或多或少的言语的延续。像那样的名、词、言语，与个别的字母不是他体，因为除了字母之外没有其他可观察的；与字母也不是一体，因为由字母聚集才能显示那个意义，无论聚集多少个别的字母也没有意义，所以不是名。词也是不聚集名就没有；所谓的言语，也是不聚集词就没有。一同聚集是不可能的，因为仅仅睁眼念诵短促的字母的时间里，也会过去多个刹那，何况是多个字母依次出现呢？因为声音和心识是依次产生和灭亡的。因此，对于字母的排列等等，由分别念混合为一，只是那样安立而已。像那样，能诠的表示本身也只是周遍计度，没有自己的实体，那么，成为实有自性的关系，又怎么会存在呢？就像虚空中的花朵，自身没有成立，香味成立是不可能的。第二，宗法不成。 论式没有能立或只是承诺， 所立有法《吠陀》常法不成。 第一， 对方先说和驳斥对方。 第一， 对于之前的那个论式，“非所作”的那个因，因为自己的体性没有成立，所以宗法不成；并且，有法《吠陀》是常法没有成立，也有宗法不成的两种过失。 第一， 说道《吠陀》的声音是非所作，因为没有任何能立，所以那个因没有成立。对方说道能立：因为从无始以来就存在，所以想不起这个《吠陀》的作者是谁，因此《吠陀》不是人造的，这样也
English
It is nominally established, like establishing distinctions in numbers as stars, suns, and so on. Similarly, words and so on, that is, all speech, are also established merely by conceptual imputation. If they are not established by imputation, their own nature cannot be established, so they are unreal. Because names are not assembled, and in the meantime, the connecting cause is given, words like "the pot is impermanent" appear. When many words are assembled, a continuous stream of speech, either much or little, appears, showing the meaning of the occasion. Such names, words, and speech are not different from individual letters, because nothing other than letters can be observed. Nor are they the same as letters, because it is the assembly of letters that shows the meaning; no matter how many individual letters are assembled, they have no meaning, so they are not names. Words also do not exist without the assembly of names. What is called speech also does not exist without the assembly of words. It is impossible to assemble them simultaneously, because even in the time it takes to pronounce a short letter with the blink of an eye, many moments pass. What need is there to say that many letters appear in sequence? Because sound and consciousness arise and cease in sequence. Therefore, the arrangement of letters and so on is mixed into one by conceptual thought, and it is merely established as such. In that way, even the expressive sign itself is merely a complete imputation, without its own entity. How can the relationship of becoming the nature of a real entity exist in that? Just like a flower in the sky, it is impossible for fragrance to be established when the flower itself is not established. Second, the property of the subject is not established. The sign lacks proof or is merely stated as a commitment. The subject, the Veda, being permanent is not established. First, the proponent states and refutes the same. First, regarding the previous sign, the sign "uncreated" is not established because its own nature is not established, so the property of the subject is not established. Also, the subject, the Veda, being permanent is not established, so there are two faults of the property of the subject not being established. First, saying that the sound of the Veda is uncreated, because there is no proof, that sign is not established. The opponent states the proof: Because it has existed since beginningless time, no one remembers who the author of this Veda is, therefore the Veda is not made by humans, and so on.
Chinese
哦，是的。 “也”这个词是真实的，意思是收集，而“年”这个词是不满意的词。对于这种不合逻辑的说法，那些自以为是地认为自己理解其规则的人，会说“这是真的”，并随声附和。因此，由于标志没有成立且不确定，所以不了解这一点的人会被无知或邪恶的黑暗所笼罩和蔓延。此外，就像现在这个念诵吠陀的人，如果没有从其他老师那里学习阅读等，那么文字的排列、名称和词语，以及词语的排列，就没有表达或念诵的能力。同样，对于某些人认为以前的八位老师等是吠陀的作者，也必须由他人来教导，因此一些思想家说，吠陀是无始的，没有人创造它。第二，通过这个标志，要证明的东西无法完全成立。如果这个标志成立为宗依，那就太过分了。第一，表明这个标志被误认为是没有被创造的。即使仅仅成立为无始，也是不必要的。第一，说“不记得作者”也是没有意义的，因为并非没有人记得，佛教徒记得是由八位、弥乌同、弥乌同天和各种善知识等创造的。胜论派的导师胜食等 记得是由地之精华，即梵天创造的。如果有些人因为不记得就认为是没有创造的，那么祖先的旧井等也会被认为是没有创造的。如果佛教徒认为这样记得是虚假的，那么认为经典是由人创造的其他人记得也是虚假的，因为这两者之间没有创造与未创造的区别的标志。如果没有，那么就像认为是由组合者黑女之民创造的《青年出现》一样，新近由人创作或扩展的其他经典，如果没有以前老师传授的阅读等秘诀，那么在哪里能看到其他人随意念诵？因为没有看到。那么，为什么不由此推断吠陀也没有被创造呢？因为这两者是相似的。一般来说，仅仅是阅读经典的词语，也要学习字母的范本等才能开始，并且经典的通用术语和术语的差异难以理解，如果没有其他人