Chinese
即使生起种类，如果不执取灯，那么在那之前执取什么是不合理的。如果说灯和那两者聚合是心的因，即使没有斑点圆形等自相，仅仅因为有灯，它的显现也有，因此两者聚合也不是因，因为由两个因聚合所生，不可能仅由一个产生两者的识，就像蓝黄一样。即使那样，对于眼睛受损的人来说，未聚合的灯不显现，而对于眼睛明亮的人来说，聚合的灯不显现，并且因为一个灯由于根的因缘而各自显现，所以无境的根识仅仅显现为明亮而已。第二，遮破依赖于根识的境，从方位上说损害，从时间上说损害。第一， 说出太过，以及它的回答，遮破和成立义的总结三者。第一，从方位的角度来说，以与境的远近等词语，来说明近、非常近、最近和远也同样适用。像这样，由于远近的差别，境的清晰与不清晰不同是不合理的。为什么呢？因为对于想要赤裸裸地执取境的自性的人来说，无论如何执取，执取一个境的自性是没有差别的缘故。第二，依赖于中间的显现来回答，遮破依赖于作用的回答。第一，遮破显现差别的回答，遮破显现清晰与不清晰的回答。第一，如果说根境中间的显现差别导致了清晰与不清晰的改变，那么瓶子等色法是被显现所隔断，还是未被隔断呢？这两种情况无论哪种，无论近还是远，见或不见都将相同。如果未被隔断，那么就像近处一样，远处也将被见到，因为不可能被显现隔断。如果被隔断，那么即使近，也会因为被中间的显现隔断，就像屏风后面的瓶子一样，将无法被见到。第二，即使显现不清晰，境也不会改变，显现不清晰本身是不合理的。第一，如果因为中间的显现不清晰，所以只能粗略地了解境，而它的一些细微部分则无法见到，因此清晰与不清晰才会有差别，就像在昏暗的时候，一些瓶子的形状
English
Even if a kind arises, it is unreasonable to grasp something before grasping the lamp. If it is said that the lamp and the combination of the two are the cause of the mind, even if there are no characteristics such as speckled circles, just because there is a lamp, its appearance also exists, so the combination of the two is not the cause, because what is produced by the combination of two causes, it is impossible for only one to produce the consciousness of both, just like blue and yellow. Even so, for a person with impaired vision, the uncombined lamp does not appear, but for a person with clear vision, the combined lamp does not appear, and because one lamp appears separately due to the cause of the senses, the sense consciousness without an object only appears as bright. Secondly, refuting based on the object of sense consciousness, stating harm based on direction, stating harm based on time. First, Stating the fallacy and its answer, refuting and summarizing the established meaning are three. First, from the perspective of direction, using words such as near and far from the object, it means that near, very near, closest, and far are also applied in the same way. In this way, it is unreasonable for the clarity and unclearness of the object to appear different due to the difference in distance. Why? Because for those who want to grasp the nature of the object nakedly, no matter how they grasp it, there is no difference in grasping the nature of one object. Second, relying on the intermediate appearance to answer, refuting the answer based on function. First, refuting the answer of the difference in appearance, refuting the answer of clear and unclear appearance. First, if it is said that the difference in the appearance between the root object causes the change in clarity and unclearness, then is the form of the vase, etc., interrupted by the appearance, or not interrupted? In either case, whether near or far, seeing or not seeing will be the same. If it is not interrupted, then just like being near, being far will also be seen, because it is impossible to be interrupted by the appearance. If it is interrupted, then even if it is near, it will not be seen like a vase behind a screen because it is interrupted by the intermediate appearance. Second, even if the appearance is unclear, the object will not change, and the unclear appearance itself is unreasonable. First, if because the intermediate appearance is unclear, one can only roughly understand the object, and some of its subtle parts cannot be seen, therefore there will be a difference between clear and unclear, just like in dim times, some shapes of vases
Chinese
如果说是按照观点那样，因为你们的宗派认为要如实地执持境自身的体性，那么所要执持的境，是粗大无分的一体呢？还是微细的各个微尘的具有分？如果是第一种情况，那么外境的整体无分一体如实显现，以及从中不显现的各自分散的部分，是什么原因呢？这是不可能的。如果是第二种情况，当见到境时，因为执持了微尘的自性，所以众多各异的微尘在如实显现时，不显现的那些比微尘更细微的部分，是什么原因呢？这也是不可能的。除了粗大和微细这两种情况之外，没有其他的见境方式。这样，既然无法区分某些部分被认识而某些部分不被认识的差别，那么如果因为中间的显现清晰与不清晰的差别，而导致执持它的心变得清晰与不清晰不同，就像早晨和白天看事物一样，如果这样说，那么对此有什么可反驳的呢？虽然因为原因的差别，心变得清晰与不清晰是真实的，但这适用于心的状态，而不适用于无分别地执持境，因为其他的显现存在清晰与不清晰的差别，所以境自身没有差别，但如实执持时，又因为什么原因而显得不同呢？即使显现不清晰，也不是不执持境，而执持时，因为是如实地执持境，所以不应该存在清晰与不清晰。第二，如果向对方提问，为什么远处的境与根之间的显现不清晰呢？如果回答说，显现是因为被土尘、烟雾、尘埃等其他微粒遮蔽而不清晰。那么反问，为什么这种遮蔽不存在于近处境的显现中呢？如果回答说，虽然存在，但因为变得稀薄了。那么显现也同样是稀薄的，所以近处的显现不会变得清晰。此外，即使远处物体和根之间的遮蔽微粒很浓厚，但显现微粒也同样不是稀薄的，而是同样浓厚，所以近处和远处的物体不会存在清晰与不清晰的差别。另外，如果在近处时显现清晰，那么对于非常靠近眼睛的眼皮等，显现应该更加清晰才对。
English
If it is said to be according to the view, since your school believes in grasping the nature of the object itself as it is, then is the object to be grasped a single, indivisible whole, or is it composed of individual, minute particles with parts? If it is the first case, then the entirety of the external object, a single indivisible whole, appears as it is, and the different parts that are not seen from it, what is the reason for that? It is impossible. If it is the second case, when seeing an object, because the nature of the minute particles is grasped, so when the numerous different minute particles appear as they are, what is the reason that the parts finer than those that are not seen? That is also impossible. There is no other way of seeing objects other than these two, coarse and fine. Thus, since it is impossible to distinguish the difference between some parts being understood and some not, then if the difference between the clarity and unclearness of the intermediate appearance causes the mind that grasps it to become clear and unclear differently, like looking at objects in the morning and daytime, if you say that, then what is there to refute? Although it is true that the mind becomes clear and unclear due to the difference in causes, this applies to the state of mind, but it does not apply to grasping objects without distinction, because other appearances have differences in clarity and unclearness, so the object itself has no difference, but when grasping it as it is, for what reason does it appear differently? Even if the appearance is unclear, it is not that the object is not grasped, and when grasped, because the object is grasped as it is, it is not reasonable to have clarity and unclearness. Second, if you ask the other party, why is the appearance between the distant object and the sense faculty not clear? If the answer is that the appearance is unclear because it is obscured by other particles such as earth dust, smoke, and debris. Then ask in return, why does this obscuration not exist in the appearance of the nearby object? If the answer is that although it exists, it has become thin. Then the appearance is also the same as being thin, so the appearance of the nearby object will not become clear. Furthermore, even if the obscuring particles between the distant object and the sense faculty are thick, the appearance particles are also not thin, but are equally thick, so there will be no difference in clarity and unclearness between near and far objects. In addition, if the appearance is clear when it is near, then the appearance of the eyelids, etc., which are very close to the eyes, should be even clearer.
Tibetan
་ཤིན་ཏུ་ཉེ་བའི་གཟུགས་དེ་ཡང་ཤིན་ཏུ་གསལ་བར་སྣང་བར་འགྱུར་དགོས་ནའང་དེ་ལྟ་བུ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་མི་འཐད་དོ། །གཉིས་པ་ལས་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ལན་དགག་པ་ནི། གལ་ཏེ་གསལ་མི་གསལ་དུ་གྱུར་པ་དེར་ཡང་མཐོང་མེད་དེ་ཆོས་དང་ཆོས་མིན་གྱི་སྔོན་གྱི་ལས་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་ཡུལ་གཟུགས་དེ་ཉིད་སྐད་ཅིག་གི་རྒྱུན་གཞན་དང་གཞན་ཉིད་དུ་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། ཡུལ་གཅིག་ལ་དུས་གཅིག་ཏུ་སྐྱེས་བུ་ལྟ་བ་པོ་ཐག་ཉེ་རིང་སྣ་ཚོགས་ན་གནས་པ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་གསལ་མི་གསལ་སྣ་ཚོགས་པར་མཐོང་བའི་ཚེ། དེ་འདྲའི་གཟུགས་དེ་དག་རྣམས་ནི་ནང་ཕན་ཚུན་དུ་གཅིག་ལ་གཅིག་སྒྲིབ་པ་ཡིན་ནམ་མིན། བསྒྲིབ་པར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། གཞན་སྒྲིབ་པ་དེ་ཕྱིར་ད་ལྟ་སྣང་བཞིན་པའི་སྣང་བ་འདི་ནི་གཟུགས་གཞན་སྒྲི༷བ་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ལ། དེ་ལྟ་ན་ཐག་ཉེ་རིང་དུ་གནས་པ་དེ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལ་སྒྲིབ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་གཟུགས་གཅིག་པུ་དེ་ཁོ་ན་སྣང་བར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ལས་གཟུགས་དེ་རྣམས་ཕན་ཚུན་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་མ་བསྒྲིབས་ན་ཐག་ཉེ་རིང་ན་གནས་པ་ཀུན་གྱིས་དུས་ཅིག་ཅར་དུ་ནི་གསལ་བ་དང་མི་གསལ་བའི་རང་བཞིན་དག་མཐོང་བར་འགྱུར་དགོས་ཀྱང་དེ་མི་སྲིད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཅིག་ཅར་ཡོད་ཀྱང་མི་མཐོང་སྟེ་མཐོང་མེད་དེ་ལས་ཀྱིས་གང་རུང་གཅིག་བསྒྲི༷བས་ནས་གཅིག་ཁོ་ནར་སྣང་ངོ་ཞེ་ན། ལས་གཟུགས་དེ་རྣམས་དུས་ གཅིག་ཏུ་ཡོད་པར་འདྲ་བ་ལ་གང་རུང་རེ་ལས་ཀྱིས་མི་སྣང་བར་བྱེད་པ་དེ་ནི་བྱིས་པའི་རྩེད་མོ་ལྟར་གྱུར་གྱི་དེ་འདྲའི་གཟུགས་མཐོང་བ་དང་མ་མཐོང་བ་གང་གིས་སྐྱེས་བུ་ལྟ་བ་པོ་ལ་དོན་དེ་ཕན་པར་བྱེད་པ་དང་དོན་མིན་པ་གནོད་པར་བྱེད་པ་ཅུང་ཟད་ཀྱང་མེད་པ་དེ་ལ་དགེ་མི་དགེའི་ལས་ཀྱི་མིང་ཅན་མ་མཐོང་བས་སྐྱེས་བུ་ལྟ་བ་པོ་ལ་རྣམ་སྨིན་བདེ་སྡུག་གི་ཆ་མྱོང་བར་ཅི་ཞིག་བྱེད་དེ་ཅི་ཡང་མི་བྱེད་ན་དེ་འདྲའི་ལས་ཁས་ལེན་པ་ནི་དོན་མེད་དོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རྟ་གདོང་གི་མེ་ལྟ་བུ་ཡང་སེམས་ཅན་རྣམས་ཀྱི་ལས་བདག་པོར་གྱུར་པའི་དབང་གིས་བྱུང་བ་ཡིན་ཀྱང་ཕན་གནོད་མེད་པ་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། དེས་ཀྱང་ཡུལ་རུང་བ་ན་གནས་པ་དག་ལ་དངོས་སུ་ཕན་གནོད་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན་ལ། འཇིག་རྟེན་སྣོད་ཀྱི་ཡན་ལག་ཏུ་གཏོགས་པའི་དབང་གིས་བརྒྱུད་ནས་ཀྱང་ཕན་གནོད་བྱེད་ཀྱི་དོན་ཅི་ཡང་མི་བྱེད་པ་མིན་ནོ། །གསལ་མི་གསལ་ཡང་དེ་དང་འདྲའོ་སྙམ་ན་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ་ཕན་གནོད་ཀྱི་རྟེན་མི་བྱེད་པར་མཐོང་བ་ཙམ་དུ་ཟད་དོ། །རེས་འགའ་ཡུལ་ཡིད་དུ་མཐུན་པ་གསལ་བས་ཕན་འདོགས་པ་དང་མི་གསལ་བས་གནོད་པ་སྐྱེད་
Chinese
即使是非常近的色法，也应该显得非常清晰，但因为不是那样，所以不合理。第二，驳斥依赖业的回答：如果变得清晰或不清晰，也是因为无明，依赖于法与非法之先前的业，使得境色自身在刹那的相续中变得不同，这样说可以吗？当对于一个境，同时有远近不同的观看者存在时，他们会看到各种清晰或不清晰的情况。那么，这些色法之间是互相遮蔽还是不遮蔽？如果说是遮蔽，那么遮蔽其他事物的显现，现在所显现的这种显现，就是遮蔽其他色法的。如果是这样，那么对于所有远近不同的人来说，就只会显现那个唯一的遮蔽之色。如果业所生的色法之间不互相遮蔽，那么所有远近不同的人都应该在同一时间看到清晰和不清晰的自性，但这是不可能的。即使同时存在也看不见，因为无明，业会遮蔽其中一个，而只显现一个。如果这样说，那么业所生的色法在同一时间存在是相似的，但其中任何一个被业所遮蔽而无法显现，这就像是小孩子的游戏一样。这样的色法，无论是看见还是看不见，对于观看者来说，无论是带来利益还是带来损害，都没有任何作用。对于没有善与不善之业的名号，没有被看见，观看者又如何体验到异熟果的苦乐之分呢？既然什么也做不了，那么承认这样的业就没有意义。如果说，就像马头之火一样，也是因为众生的业成为主宰而产生的，但没有利益和损害，就像那样一样。即使那样，它也会对处于适宜之处的事物直接产生利益和损害。而且，由于属于世间器皿的组成部分，也会间接地产生利益和损害，并非什么作用也不起。如果认为清晰与不清晰也与此类似，那是不对的，因为它不作为利益和损害的所依，仅仅是看见而已。有时，合意的境因为清晰而带来利益，不清晰而带来损害。
English
Even a very near form should appear very clear, but since it is not so, it is unreasonable. Secondly, refuting the answer based on karma: If becoming clear or unclear is also due to ignorance, relying on the previous karma of dharma and non-dharma, causing the object form itself to become different in the continuum of moments, is that acceptable? When there are various viewers, near and far, existing at the same time for one object, they see various clear and unclear situations. Then, do these forms mutually obscure each other or not? If it is said that they obscure, then the appearance that obscures other things, the appearance that is now appearing, is what obscures other forms. If this is the case, then for all those who are near and far, only that one obscuring form will appear. If the forms produced by karma do not obscure each other, then all those who are near and far should see the nature of clarity and unclearness at the same time, but this is impossible. Even if they exist simultaneously, they cannot be seen, because of ignorance, karma will obscure one of them, and only one will appear. If it is said like this, then the forms produced by karma are similar in that they exist at the same time, but any one of them is obscured by karma and cannot appear, which is like a child's game. Such forms, whether seen or unseen, have no effect on the viewer, whether bringing benefit or harm. For the name of karma that is neither virtuous nor non-virtuous, not being seen, how does the viewer experience the division of happiness and suffering of the ripening result? Since it can do nothing, then admitting such karma is meaningless. If it is said that, like the fire of a horse's head, it is also produced because the karma of sentient beings becomes the master, but there is no benefit or harm, just like that. Even so, it directly benefits and harms things that are in a suitable place. Moreover, because it belongs to the components of the world vessel, it also indirectly produces benefit and harm, it is not that it does nothing. If it is thought that clarity and unclearness are also similar to this, that is not right, because it does not serve as the basis for benefit and harm, it is merely seeing. Sometimes, a pleasing object brings benefit because it is clear, and harm because it is unclear.