Chinese
显示。 第二，显示因果并非异体： 芽和种子并非同时存在， 若无他性，种子怎会变为他物？ 因此，芽非由种子生， 故应舍弃“由他生”之说。 此处，如慈氏菩萨与近藏菩萨般，唯有同时存在者，方能相互观待而安立为他性。 芽与种子并非同时存在，因种子未灭，芽便不会出现。 故彼等无他性，种子怎会变为芽？ 既无他性，芽便非由异体种子所生， 故应舍弃“诸法由他生”之说。 若言种子与芽并非同时存在，故不成立他性，此说不合理。 何以故？ 如同天平两端之高低， 并非不见其非同时存在一般。 若谓生者与作者同时生， 如同天平两端之首尾高低， 并非不见其非同时存在一般。 所生之芽与能生之种子，其生灭亦同时发生，故成立他性。 此亦不合理，因譬喻与意义不符。 如此， 纵然一时，然此处无一时， 生者趋向生，故非有， 灭者虽有，然已趋向灭。 彼时，此等如何与天平相似？ 天平两端之高低乃是现在，故为一时， 然种子与芽在此并非一时， 芽之生乃是显现趋向生，故非现在所有， 种子之灭乃是显现趋向灭，故为现在所有之时。 芽与种子之生灭，如何能与天平之高低相比？ 若谓种子与芽之法虽非同时，然生灭之作用则为同时，此说不然，因无异于法之作用。 此外， 此生无作者，理不容。
English
Showing. Second, showing that cause and effect are not different entities: Sprouts and seeds do not exist simultaneously, If there is no otherness, how can a seed become something else? Therefore, the sprout is not born from the seed, Therefore, one should abandon the saying that "it is born from another." Here, just like Maitreya and Guizang, only those who exist at the same time can be regarded as otherness by looking at each other. Sprouts and seeds do not exist at the same time, because if the seeds are not destroyed, the sprouts will not appear. Therefore, since they have no otherness, how can seeds become sprouts? Since there is no otherness, sprouts are not born from different seeds, Therefore, one should abandon the saying that "all dharmas are born from others." If you say that seeds and sprouts do not exist at the same time, so otherness is not established, this is unreasonable. Why? Just like the height of the two ends of the balance, It is not that you do not see that they do not exist at the same time. If it is said that the born and the author are born at the same time, Just like the height of the beginning and end of the two ends of the balance, it is not that you do not see that they do not exist at the same time. The birth and death of the born sprout and the born seed also occur at the same time, so otherness is established. This is also unreasonable, because the metaphor does not match the meaning. In this way, Even if it is one time, there is no one time here, The one who is born is tending to be born, so it is not there, The destroyer is there, but it is tending to be destroyed. At that time, how are these similar to the balance? The height of the two ends of the balance is now, so it is one time, However, seeds and sprouts are not one time here, The birth of the sprout is just a manifestation of tending to be born, so it is not present now, The destruction of the seed is just a manifestation of tending to be destroyed, so it is present now. How can the birth and death of sprouts and seeds be compared with the height of the balance? If it is said that although the dharma of seeds and sprouts is not at the same time, the function of birth and death is at the same time, this is not the case, because there is no function different from the dharma. In addition, This life has no author, and reason does not allow it.
Chinese
。幼芽生长的行为，在种子坏灭显现之际，认为存在是不合理的。因为那时，生长的行为的作者，也就是所依的幼芽是不存在的。因此，在坏灭之时，认为有正在生长的行为也是不合理的。如果说，像天平两端高低一样，在种子坏灭的刹那，幼芽就生起了，这不是在《圣稻秆青苗经》中所说的吗？虽然是这样说的，但那也不是为了显示从他而生，也不是为了显示生自性成立，然而，是为了清楚地显示同时依靠而生，未经观察而成立，如幻术一般。如论师所说：从种子坏灭与未坏灭，幼芽生起是不可能的，因此，您说一切生，如幻术生起一般。如果像种子和幼芽一样，时间不相同的事物没有他性，但眼等和，感受和，认识等与自己同时的事物，会成为眼识等的因。这样，同时的因果具有他性，因此他生就成立了吗？也不是这样的，因为同时的事物不可能是因果。例如，对于眼识来说，自己的生起者同时的，眼等和一同生起的认识等，如果具有他性，那么眼识必须存在，因为不存在就不能从它变成他性。如果存在，那么对于存在者来说，生起又有什么必要呢？因为存在，眼和认识等作为生起者就没有意义了。如果想要避免那个过失而说眼识不存在，那么这样说的人，对于这个不存在的眼识来说，眼等不是他性，这个过失已经说过了。这样，如果承认从他而生，如果他性成立，那么所生之物
English
It is not reasonable to assume that the act of a sprout growing exists when the seed is on the verge of decay. This is because at that time, the agent of the act of growing, i.e., the basis, the sprout, does not exist. Therefore, it is also unreasonable to assume that the act of growing exists at the time of decay. If it is said, "Is it not stated in the Sutra of the Noble Rice Seedling that a sprout arises at the very moment the seed decays, like the rise and fall of the scales of a balance?" Although it is said, it is not to show that it arises from another, nor is it to show that birth is established by its own nature. However, it is to clearly show that arising dependently at once, established without examination, is like an illusion. As the teacher said: "Since a sprout does not arise from a seed that is decayed or not decayed, you say that all births are like the arising of an illusion." If things that are not simultaneous, like seeds and sprouts, do not have otherness, but things that are simultaneous with oneself, like the eye, feeling, and perception, become causes for eye consciousness, etc., then does other-birth become established because simultaneous causes and effects have otherness? That is not so, because simultaneous things cannot be cause and effect. For example, for the eye-consciousness, if the eye, etc., which are its simultaneous producers, and the perceptions, etc., which arise simultaneously with it, have otherness from the eye-consciousness, then that eye-consciousness must exist, because if it does not exist, it cannot become other than it. If it exists, then what is the need for arising for what already exists? Because it exists, the eye and perceptions, etc., are meaningless as producers. If one wants to avoid that fault and says that eye-consciousness does not exist, then for one who says that, the fault has already been stated that the eye, etc., are not other than the non-existent eye-consciousness. Thus, if one accepts that arising is from another, if otherness is established, then the object to be produced