English
If it is like this, if the proof is to establish what is to be established, then for the object to be shown, because it is the object of wanting to infer, there is no established refutation, and even if it possesses the four distinctions that can be understood as the object of desire by the opponent himself. If the term "wanting" does not need to be mentioned alone and can show its distinction, then it does not need to be mentioned in the compendium either. If it is necessary, then in the gate of reasoning, will there also arise doubts such as whether the unestablished example or sign is also what is to be established, because that definition cannot be cut off, so will it be necessary to mention the suffix of the word "only"? If you ask. In the compendium, by expressing the words "self" and "wanting," although it is true that the meaning of grasping only what is to be established is certainly understood, in the compendium, the term "to be shown" is not distinguished by the three times, but has the extreme of making it extreme, and because those words are related, even if it is not considered what is to be established now, doubts will arise such as whether the unestablished example or sign that will be wanted to be established in the future is also what is to be established. For example, when saying "to see Lhas-byin coming," there is no certainty that it is understood only as "Lhas-byin coming is to be seen," but like thinking "Lhas-byin is now coming to be seen," even if there is no established refutation, and since one wants it to be the object, it is what is to be established, doubts arise that it will become what is to be established from now on, therefore, even if it becomes what is to be established in another time, in the future, that is the means of proof at that time, so in order to cut off the definition of what is to be established being too broad for it, the word "only" is explained. For example, if it is written, "Sound is impermanent, because it is produced," then when answering the unestablished sign, although it is necessary to say "because it is produced" to make it what is to be established. However, when establishing the root argument, it is like not considering that as what is to be established. Then, why is that distinction also not needed in the gate of reasoning? If you ask. Adding the suffix (Tibetan: ཀྟ་, Devanagari: क्त, Romanized Sanskrit: kta, literal meaning: suffix) to the root meaning "wanting" (Tibetan: ཨིཥུ་, Devanagari: इषु, Romanized Sanskrit: iṣu, literal meaning: wanting), then u (Tibetan: ཨུ་, Devanagari: उ, Romanized Sanskrit: u, literal meaning: u) is connected after that, and ka (Tibetan: ཀ་, Devanagari: क, Romanized Sanskrit: ka, literal meaning: ka) is the meaning of the sign, so after that, sha (Tibetan: ཥ་, Devanagari: ष, Romanized Sanskrit: ṣa, literal meaning: sha) is transformed into ta (Tibetan: ཏ་, Devanagari: त, Romanized Sanskrit: ta, literal meaning: ta) da (Tibetan: ཊ་, Devanagari: ट, Romanized Sanskrit: ṭa, literal meaning: da) on this side, and then guided, so ishtta (Tibetan: ཨིཥྚ་, Devanagari: इष्ट, Romanized Sanskrit: iṣṭa, literal meaning: wanted) is established. Thus, adding the suffix to the root meaning "wanting" is not a part that can cut off becoming what is to be established in the future in this compendium, but because of the power of the accompanying words, as said before. In the gate of reasoning, for the words that have become wanting, the distinction becomes inherently capable.
Chinese
因此，就像“天授来了”一样，它成为了理解能力的一个分支。因此，那个词不需要添加能阻止论证不成立等成为所立宗的词语。虽然此时肯定和否定的词语颠倒过来有不同的变化，但意义的解释方式是相同的。 因为“如同”这个词本身不能表达具有极高名声的事物和自身意愿等含义，所以也不应该解释为具有其他含义。而且，“又”这个词，解释为不需要将论著的所有意义都作为所立宗，这样解释是有道理的，而且看到其他解释有损害，所以这里所说的才是正确的意义。因此，“自身”的意义是，与辩论者自己所希望的宗义不同的其他宗义，即不依赖于所承诺的论著的所有意义，辩论者自己所希望的仅仅是宗义本身。因此，如果辩论者不希望的宗义，与论著作者的意愿，如空性等相关联，并且像“所作”一样的因对它造成损害，那么无论如何，它都不会对成立它造成损害。因此，如“声音是无常的”和“所作”一样的宗义和能立，就是没有宗法和因的过失。第二，解释排除。分为简略地说明和详细地解释。第一，如量论经中说：“现量、比量和，可信名声为自立。”一样进行解释。如此这般承诺的所立宗，现量和比量这两个量已经遮止，也就是被排除，是这样认为的，因为这是论证能力所作用的范围。如果被排除，为什么不能成为所立宗呢？因为论证是为了消除对所立宗的怀疑而说的，所以被量排除的法，因为被认为是未成立的，所以论证的基础不能成为所立宗。第二，分为：解释排除的意义的自性；用排除的例子来表示的方式；第一，分为：解释用什么来排除；
English
Therefore, just like saying "Devadatta has come," it has become a branch of the ability to understand. Therefore, that word does not need to add words that can prevent the argument from being unestablished, etc., from becoming the proposition. Although at this time, the words of affirmation and negation are reversed and have different variations, the way of explaining the meaning is the same. Because the word "like" itself cannot express the meaning of things with extremely high fame and one's own wishes, etc., it should not be explained as having other meanings. Moreover, the word "also," explaining that it is not necessary to take all the meanings of the treatise as the proposition, this explanation is reasonable, and seeing that other explanations are harmful, so what is said here is the correct meaning. Therefore, the meaning of "self" is that other propositions that are different from the proposition that the debater himself desires, that is, without relying on all the meanings of the promised treatise, what the debater himself desires is only the proposition itself. Therefore, if the proposition that the debater does not desire is related to the intention of the author of the treatise, such as emptiness, etc., and if a reason like "made" harms it, then in any case, it will not harm the establishment of it. Therefore, propositions and proofs like "sound is impermanent" and "made" are without the faults of the subject and the reason. Second, explaining exclusion. Divided into briefly explaining and explaining in detail. First, as it is said in the Sutra of Pramana: "Direct perception, inference, and, reliable fame are self-established." Explain as it is said. The proposition promised in this way, the two pramanas of direct perception and inference have already prevented, that is, been excluded, it is thought so, because this is the scope of the function of the argument. If it is excluded, why can't it become the proposition? Because the argument is said in order to eliminate the doubt about the proposition, so the dharma excluded by the pramana, because it is considered unestablished, so the basis of the argument cannot become the proposition. Second, divided into: explaining the nature of the meaning of exclusion; the way of expressing it with examples of exclusion; first, divided into: explaining what is used to exclude;
Tibetan
ན་གང་ལ་བསལ་བ་བཤད། །དང་པོ་ལ། བསལ་བ་སྤྱི་ཡི་དབྱེ་བ་བཤད། །སྐབས་བབས་སོ་སོའི་ངོ་བོ་བཤད། །དང་པོ། བསལ་བ་ལ་དུ་ཡོད་ཅེ་ན། སྤྱིར་ཚད་མ་ནི་མངོན་རྗེས་གཉིས་སུ་གྲངས་ངེས་པས་ན་དེའི་བསལ་བའང་གཉིས་ཡོད་པ་ལས་འདིར་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པའི་སྐབས་ལ་དངོས་སྟོབས་དང་། ཡིད་ཆེས། གྲགས་པ་གསུམ་དུ་དབྱེ་བ་ཡིས་མངོན་སུམ་དང་བཅས་པའི་ཚད་མས་གནོད་པའམ་བསལ་བ་དེ་ནི་རྣམ་པ་བཞིར་བཤད་དོ། །དེ་ལ་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ནི་ཚིག་དེ་བརྗོད་བྱ་མ་ནོར་བར་འཇལ་བྱེད་དུ་ཡིད་ཆེས་པ་ཡིན་པས་འབྲས་རྟགས་སུ་འདུ་བ་ཡིན་ཏེ། བརྗོད་བྱ་མངོན་སུམ་མིན་པ་དེ་དག་ཚིག་དེས་ལེགས་པར་རྟོགས་པ་ཡོད་ན་ཚིག་ལས་རྗེས་སུ་དཔག་པ་ཡིན་ལ། དེ་ཡང་བརྗོད་དོན་དེ་མེད་ན་དོན་ལྡན་གྱི་ངག་དེ་མི་འབྱུང་བས་དེ་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས་འབྱུང་བའི་འབྲས་རྟགས་ཡིན་ཞིང་། མི་སླུ་བའི་ཚིག་མིན་ན་དེ་ལྟར་མ་ངེས་ཏེ། རྗོད་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཚིག་རྣམས་བརྗོད་དོན་དང་མེད་ན་མི་འབྱུང་མེད་པར་རྒྱས་པར་བསྒྲུབས་ཟིན་ཏོ། །འགྲོ་ ལ་གྲགས་པ་ནི་རང་བཞིན་གྱི་རྟགས་ཏེ་ཆོས་ཅན་རི་བོང་ཅན་ལ་ཟླ་བ་ཞེས་པར་ཡོངས་སུ་གྲགས་པ་ལྟ་བུ་གྲགས་རུང་གི་རང་བཞིན་དུ་གནས་ཤིང་གྲགས་ཟིན་པའང་ཆོས་ཅན་དེའི་རང་བཞིན་ཏེ། དེ་ལྟ་བུ་ཡིན་པར་གྱུར་པ་མེའི་ཚ་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །དེ་ཡང་གྲགས་པ་ཞེས་པ་འདི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་གྲགས་པ་ཡོད་ཚད་དང་འགལ་ན་གྲགས་འགལ་དུ་འགྱུར་བའི་དོན་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། གཙང་མི་གཙང་རྟག་མི་རྟག་སོགས་འཇིག་རྟེན་རང་ག་མའི་ངོར་གྲགས་པ་སྣ་ཚོགས་ཡོད་ཀྱང་དེ་ཙམ་གྱིས་རིགས་པའི་ཡུལ་ལ་གནོད་པ་མིན་ཡང་འཇིག་རྟེན་རང་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱི་ཐ་སྙད་དཔྱོད་པ་ན། འཇིག་རྟེན་ན་ཡོངས་སུ་གྲགས་པའི་ཐ་སྙད་ཀྱི་ཚུལ་ལུགས་གང་ཞིག་བརྟགས་ཀྱང་རིགས་པས་གཞན་དུ་བྱེད་མི་ནུས་པ་དེ་ནི་ཐ་སྙད་གནོད་མེད་དམ་གཡོ་བ་མེད་པ་ཡིན་པས་དེ་དང་འགལ་ན་གྲགས་པས་གནོད་དེ་དཔེ་བརྗོད་བཅས་རྒྱས་པར་འོག་ཏུ་འཆད་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །གཉིས་པ་ལ། ཡིད་ཆེས་གྲགས་པ་མངོན་སུམ་གསུམ། །དང་པོ་ལ། ལུང་དང་རང་ཚིག་བསྡུས་ཏེ་བཤད། །ལུང་གིས་བསལ་བ་བྱེ་བྲག་བཤད། །དང་པོ་ལ། རྒྱུ་མཚན་དགོས་པ་དཔེ་དང་གསུམ། །དང་པོ། དེ་ལྟར་བསལ་བ་བཞི་ལས་དངོས་སྟོབས་རྗེས་དཔག་ནི་སྔར་རྒྱས་པར་བཤད་ཟིན་པས་སྐབས་འདིར་གཞན་གསུམ་གྱིས་བསལ་བ་ཙམ་འཆད་པ་ལ། ཐོག་མར་ཁས་བླངས་ཀྱིས་བསལ་བ་ལ་རང་གི་ཚིག་དང་ལུང་གི་ཚིག་གཉིས་སུ་ཡོད་ཀྱང་ཀུན་བཏུས་སུ་ཡིད་ཆེས་ཀྱིས་བསལ་བ་ཞེས་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཏུ་བསྡོམས་པར་མ
Chinese
现在要讲的是遮破。首先，讲遮破总体的分类。讲各自所处情况的自性。第一，遮破有多少种呢？一般来说，量是现量和比量两种，因此它的遮破也有两种，这里就比量的情况来说，分为自力、信解、名声三种，因此加上现量，以量来损害或遮破，就说是四种。其中，承诺是指对词句毫不颠倒地信解为衡量对境之法，因此归属于果相。如果词句能很好地理解那些非现量之境，那就是从词句而来的比量。而且，如果那个所说之义不存在，那么有意义的语言就不会产生，因此是依靠它而产生的果相。如果不是不欺骗的词句，那就不能确定是这样。因为能诠之词与所说之义不符就不会产生，这已经广为论证了。走向 名声是自性相，例如，有兔子的山上普遍被称为月亮，安住于可称名的自性，已经称名的也是那个法性的自性。像这样存在就像火的热性一样。而且，这个名声并不是说与世间上所有的名声相违就会变成名声相违。因为在世间人面前，有清净不清净、常无常等各种各样的名声，但这并不损害理性的领域。然而，如果从世间本身来看，来衡量世间的名言，那么无论考察世间上普遍流传的名言习俗，理性都无法改变，这就是名言无害或不可动摇，与此相违就是名声损害，这将在下面结合例子详细阐述。第二，信解、名声、现量三种。第一，归纳讲述圣言和自语。分别讲述圣言的遮破。第一，原因、必要、比喻三种。第一，这样，在四种遮破中，自力比量已经详细阐述过了，所以这里只讲其他三种的遮破。首先，承诺的遮破有自己的语言和圣言两种，但在《摄类学》中，总括为信解的遮破，归纳为一类。
English
Now, I will explain refutation. First, I will explain the general divisions of refutation. I will explain the nature of each specific case. First, how many types of refutation are there? Generally, valid cognition is limited to two types: direct perception and inference. Therefore, its refutation is also of two types. Here, in the case of inference, it is divided into three types: self-force, conviction, and fame. Therefore, including direct perception, the harm or refutation by valid cognition is explained as four types. Among them, commitment is the belief that a word is an infallible measure of its object, and therefore it is included in the effect sign. If the word can well understand those objects that are not directly perceived, then it is an inference from the word. Moreover, if that meaning is not present, then meaningful speech will not arise, and therefore it is an effect sign that arises in dependence on it. If it is not an infallible word, then it is not necessarily so. Because the expressing words do not arise if they do not correspond to the expressed meaning, this has already been extensively proven. Going Fame is the nature sign, for example, the mountain with rabbits is commonly called the moon, abiding in the nature of being nameable, and what has already been named is also the nature of that dharma. Being like that is like the heat of fire. Moreover, this "fame" does not mean that contradicting all the fame in the world will become a contradiction of fame. Because in the eyes of worldly people, there are various kinds of fame, such as pure and impure, permanent and impermanent, but this does not harm the realm of reason. However, if we look at the world itself and examine worldly conventions, then no matter what worldly customs are examined, reason cannot change them. This is harmless or unshakeable convention, and contradicting it is harm by fame, which will be explained in detail below with examples. Second, conviction, fame, and direct perception are three. First, I will summarize and explain scripture and one's own words. I will explain the specific refutation of scripture. First, there are three: reason, necessity, and metaphor. First, thus, among the four types of refutation, self-force inference has already been explained in detail, so here I will only explain the refutation of the other three. First, the refutation of commitment has two types: one's own words and the words of scripture, but in the Compendium, it is summarized as the refutation of conviction, and summarized into one category.