Chinese
于汝而言，立宗。此无有不忘却后义之过失，因声义之关联乃是假立故。设若所依之能诠虽坏灭，然所依之关联不坏灭，因是常恒故。譬如所依之明亮虽坏灭，然所依之族类不坏灭相似，故于关联上，不决定有常有非有之过失，若如是言。比喻与意义二者皆不应理，即吠陀声义之关联与族类等，立宗。何以故？汝所许为与能诠相违之彼等，作为异体之所依，应理耶？不应理耶？应成不应理。彼等能诠与明亮，于汝以所依之方式，有何助益之能力耶？无有，因是常恒故。设若虽非生起者，然以显明之方式，与异体之所依不相违耶？瓶之形体等，亦立宗。仅以灯火之光明力，于自执之眼识境中，显明生起，然汝许为已显明耶？当生起自执识之俱作因，根等聚合时，汝以灯火光明所显明之方式，已成能生起彼自执识之自性故。如是之义，通达理智之智者们，许为所显与能显，然吠陀声义之关联与族类等，立宗。彼等自之能显，所许之能诠与明亮，作何自义耶？应成未作。汝是无有为缘所别之故，因是无有变异故。若许，彼立宗。何以故？应成彼能诠与明亮，许为已显明汝耶？不应理。又，声义之关联，纵然可成为实有自性，然彼吠陀声义之关联，与吠陀之声义二者，是实体异体耶？或非异体耶？若是前者，吠陀声义之关联，立宗。无有错乱之识，应成将汝视为与吠陀之声义二者，是各别之实体，即异体。因汝与彼二者是实体异体故。若是后者，应成彼吠陀之声义二者，即是彼本身。因是与彼二者，是无有实体异体之自相故。
English
To you, the subject. There is no fault of forgetting the subsequent meaning, because the connection between sound and meaning is fabricated. If the expressed object, the support, is destroyed, the dependent connection is not destroyed, because it is permanent. For example, even if the clear support is destroyed, the dependent class is not destroyed, so there is no definite fault of being permanent or non-existent in the connection, if you say so. Both the example and the meaning are unreasonable, namely the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas and the classes, etc., the subject. Why? Is it reasonable for you to accept those that contradict the expressed object as the support of another entity? Is it unreasonable? It should be unreasonable. What ability do those expressed objects and brightness have to help you in the way of support? There is none, because it is permanent. If, although not the producer, it is not contradictory to the support of another entity in the way of manifestation? The shape of the vase, etc., is also the subject. Only by the power of the light of the lamp, it arises clearly in the realm of self-grasping eye consciousness, but you admit that it has been manifested? When the co-operative causes of arising self-grasping consciousness, such as the root, etc., gather, you have become the nature of being able to generate that self-grasping consciousness in the way of being manifested by the light of the lamp. The wise men who understand such meaning admit the manifested and the manifestor, but the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas and the classes, etc., the subject. What self-benefit do those expressed objects and brightness, which are admitted as their own manifestors, do? It should be that they have not done it. You are not distinguished by conditions, because you are immutable. If you admit, that is the subject. Why? It should be that those expressed objects and brightness are admitted to have manifested you? It is unreasonable. Furthermore, even if the connection between sound and meaning can become a real nature, is the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas and the two sounds and meanings of the Vedas different entities or not different entities? If it is the former, the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas is the subject. The undistorted consciousness should regard you as different entities from the two sounds and meanings of the Vedas, that is, different entities. Because you and those two are different entities. If it is the latter, it should be that the two sounds and meanings of the Vedas are the same as themselves. Because it is the self-characteristic of not being a different entity from those two.
Chinese
如果这样，所知法，吠陀声义的联系应无自性，因为这种联系与吠陀的声义二者既非一体也非他体。遍知：因为除了同一和相异这二者之外，不存在具有自性的事物。以此理也可成立吠陀声义的联系不存在。吠陀之声，其与所表达之义的联系只是由分别念假立的，实际上并不成立，因为其与所表达的事物之体性和体性各异，互不混淆。另外，如果说该联系独立于吠陀的声义二者而存在，那么，吠陀声义的联系，怎么会成为依赖于吠陀的声义二者的联系呢？不会的，因为其独立于二者而存在。或者，怎么会成为吠陀的声义二者相混的声义联系呢？不会的，因为其与二者是异体。另外，如果吠陀的声音与其所表达的意义相关联，那么，该声音的字母与意义相关联，还是词语与意义相关联？如果是前者，那么，吠陀的字母阿利等，与所表达之义的联系应无自性，因为其是无所表达之义的。如果是后者，那么，吠陀的言辞等，这种与所表达之物的联系如何存在呢？不会的，因为对字母的排列只是分别念假立为言辞等，实际上并不存在。这表明，吠陀的声音虽然成立为非人造，但并未成立为真实。现在，当被问及为何说吠陀之声非人造时，论者说：吠陀的声音不仅是真实的，而且也被认为是人造的，因为人们根本不记得吠陀的作者。唉！对于这种推理，现在那些自诩为有见识的人也随声附和，认为确实如此，并执着于此，因此，这位论者真是愚蠢至极。
English
If so, knowable phenomena, the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas should be without inherent existence, because such a connection is neither the same as nor different from the sound and meaning of the Vedas. It pervades: because there is no inherently existent thing other than these two, sameness and difference. This reasoning can also establish that the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas does not exist. The sound of the Vedas, its connection with the meaning it expresses is merely imputed by conceptual thought, but it is not actually established, because it exists without being mixed with the nature and different nature of the thing it expresses. Furthermore, if that connection exists as a substance separate from the sound and meaning of the Vedas, then, how can the connection between the sound and meaning of the Vedas become a connection that depends on the sound and meaning of the Vedas? It cannot, because it exists separately from the two. Or, how can it become a sound-meaning connection that mixes the sound and meaning of the Vedas? It cannot, because it is a different substance from the two. Furthermore, if the sound of the Vedas is related to the meaning it expresses, then is the letter of that sound related to the meaning, or is the word related to the meaning? If it is the former, then the letters of the Vedas, such as Āli, etc., should become without inherent existence in relation to the meaning they express, because they are devoid of the meaning they express. If it is the latter, then how does this connection between the words of the Vedas, etc., and the thing they express exist? It cannot, because the arrangement of letters is merely imputed as words, etc., by conceptual thought, but it does not actually exist. This shows that although the sound of the Vedas is established as non-human-made, it is not established as true. Now, when asked why the sound of the Vedas is said to be non-human-made, the debater says: The sound of the Vedas is not only true, but it is also considered to be non-human-made, because people do not remember the authors of the Vedas at all. Alas! For this kind of reasoning, even those who now claim to be knowledgeable echo it, thinking it is indeed so, and cling to it, therefore, this debater is extremely foolish.
Tibetan
ངས་པའི་མུན་པས་ཁྱབ་པ་ཞིག་གོ །བྱེད་པ་པོ་མི་དྲན་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཅི་དྲིས་པས། རྒྱུ་མཚན་དགོད་པ་དེ། ད་ལྟ་རིག་བྱེད་འདོན་པ་ལས་གཞན་རིག་བྱེད་བྱེད་པ་པོར་འདོད་པའི་སྐྱེས་བུ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ལའང་རིག་བྱེད་འདོན་པ་གཞན་སྔོན་དུ་སོང་སྟེ། ཁྱོད་རིག་བྱེད་འདོན་པའི་ཕྱིར། དཔེ་ཇི་ལྟར་ན། ད་ལྟ་རིག་བྱེད་འདོན་པའི་སྐྱེས་བུ་འདི་སློབ་དཔོན་གཞན་ལས་མ་ཐོས་པར་ནི་རིག་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཡི་གེའི་བཀོད་པ་ཚིག་དང་ཚིག་གི་བཀོད་པ་ངག་ནི་བརྗོད་པའི་ནུས་པ་མེད་པ་དེ་ལྟར་དུ། དེ་ལ་ཡང་རིག་བྱེད་འདོན་པ་གཞན་སྔོན་དུ་སོང་བ་སོགས་ཐུག་མེད་དུ་འགྱུར་བས་བྱེད་པ་པོ་མི་དྲན་ནོ་ཞེས་དཔྱོད་པ་པ་འགའ་ཞིག་སྨྲའོ། །དེ་འགོག་པ་ནི། རིག་བྱེད་ལས་གཞན་ཡང་སྐྱེས་བུས་སྤེལ་བའི་གཞོན་ནུ་འབྱུང་བ་ཅན་གྱི་གཞུང་དེ་ཡང་ཆོས་ཅན། རྒྱུ་མཚན་གང་གིས་ན་རིག་བྱེད་དེ་ལྟར་ཁྱོད་ཀྱང་སྐྱེས་བུས་མ་བྱས་པར་རྗེས་སུ་མི་དཔོག་སྟེ་དཔོག་པར་རིགས་པར་ཐལ། སློབ་དཔོན་གཞན་གྱི་མན་ངག་ཡོད་པ་ལས་གཞན་མེད་པར་ད་ལྟ་གཞན་དག་གིས་འདོན་པ་གང་མཐོང་སྟེ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཞན་ཡང་རིག་བྱེད་སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ཡང་དག་ཡོད་ཅིང་། སྐྱེས་བུས་མ་བྱས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་དུ་གང་བཀོད་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་འཁྲུལ་པ་ཅན་དུ་སྟོན་པ་དེ། འབྲས་བུའི་རིགས་གང་རྒྱུའི་རིགས་གང་ལས་སྐྱེས་པར་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་ངེས་བྱེད་ཀྱི་ཚད་མས་གྲུབ་པ་ན། རྒྱུ་མཚན་དེ་ལས་སྐྱེས་པར་མཐོང་བའི་འབྲས་བུ་དེ་དང་ཁྱད་མེད་པར་རྒྱུ་དེ་ལས་སྐྱེས་པར་མ་མཐོང་བ་ཅན་གྱི་འབྲས་བུ་གཞན་ཡང་རྒྱུ་དེའི་རིགས་གཞན་ལས་སྐྱེ་བར་འགྱུར་བར་ཡང་དག་པར་ཤེས་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན། མེ་གཅིག་བུད་ཤིང་ལས་སྐྱེས་པ་མཐོང་བས། བུད་ཤིང་དེ་ལས་སྐྱེས་པར་མ་མཐོང་བའི་མེ་གཞན་ཡང་དེའི་རིགས་ཅན་གྱི་བུད་ཤིང་གཞན་ལས་སྐྱེས་པར་མཐོང་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །རིག་བྱེད་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ཆོས་ཅན། སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པར་ཐལ། སྐྱེས་བུས་བྱས་པར་གྲུབ་པའི་འཇིག་རྟེན་པའི་ངག་ཚིག་གཞན་དང་རང་བཞིན་མཚུངས་པའི་ཕྱིར། ཡང་དེ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ལ་སྐྱེས་བུས་མ་བྱས་པར་སྒྲུབ་པའི་རྟགས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་དག་ནི་མ་བསྟན་པར་ཏེ་སྟོན་མི་ནུས་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་སྐྱེས་བུའི་འབྲས་བུར་གྲུབ་པའི་འཇིག་རྟེན་པའི་ངག་ཚིག་གཞན་དང་རང་བཞིན་མཚུངས་པར་མཐོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འདོད་ན། ཁྱོད་སྐྱེས་བུས་མ་བྱས་པར་སྒྲུབ་པའི་གཏན་ཚིགས་རབ་ཏུ་སྤྲོས་པ་གང་དང་གང་བཤད་པ་དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ཁྱབ་པ་འཁྲུལ་པ་ཅན་དུ་ཐལ་ལོ། ། གཞན་ཡང་བྱེད་
Chinese
被黑暗笼罩着。询问为何不记得作者的原因时，给出的理由是：现在除了念诵吠陀之外，凡是认为有吠陀作者的人，你也有念诵吠陀在先，因为你念诵吠陀的缘故。例如，现在念诵吠陀的这个人，如果没有从其他老师那里听到，那么吠陀的文字排列、词语和词语的排列、语言没有表达的能力，就像那样。对他来说，也有念诵吠陀在先等，会变成无止境，所以不记得作者，一些论者这样说。对此进行驳斥：除了吠陀之外，由人所著的《青年出现论》也是一样。因为什么原因呢？像吠陀那样，你也不是人所造，所以不能推断，应该可以推断。因为除了有其他老师的口诀之外，现在没有看到其他人念诵。此外，有吠陀是人所造的正确理由，并且所有被列为非人所造的理由都显示为错误的。当以衡量因果关系的量成立，果的种类从哪种因的种类产生时，正确地知道从那个理由产生，与所见的果没有差别，没有从那个因产生的其他果，也会从那个因的其他种类产生。例如，看到一团火从木柴中产生，没有从那个木柴中产生的其他火，也看到从其他同类的木柴中产生一样。吠陀的声音，是人所造的，因为与人所造的、已成立的世俗语言的自性相同。还有，你，没有显示出能成立非人所造的理由的差别，即不能显示。因为你被看到与人所造的、已成立的世俗语言的自性相同。如果承认，那么，所有你所说的、详细阐述的能成立非人所造的论证，都将变成周遍错误。此外，作者
English
It is covered by darkness. When asked why the author is not remembered, the reason given is: Now, besides reciting the Vedas, anyone who believes there is an author of the Vedas, you also have reciting the Vedas prior, because you recite the Vedas. For example, this person who is now reciting the Vedas, if he has not heard from other teachers, then the arrangement of the letters of the Vedas, the words and the arrangement of the words, the language has no ability to express, just like that. For him, there is also reciting the Vedas prior, etc., it will become endless, so the author is not remembered, some debaters say. This is refuted: Besides the Vedas, the treatise "The Emergence of Youth," which is written by humans, is also the same. For what reason? Like the Vedas, you are also not made by humans, so it cannot be inferred, it should be possible to infer. Because besides having the oral instructions of other teachers, now no one else is seen reciting. Furthermore, there is a correct reason that the Vedas are made by humans, and all the reasons listed as not made by humans are shown to be false. When it is established by the measure of determining cause and effect, what kind of fruit arises from what kind of cause, then it is correctly known that it arises from that reason, there is no difference from the fruit that is seen, other fruits that did not arise from that cause will also arise from other kinds of that cause. For example, seeing a fire arising from firewood, other fires that did not arise from that firewood are also seen arising from other similar firewood. The sound of the Vedas is made by humans, because it has the same nature as the worldly language that is made and established by humans. Also, you have not shown the difference of the reason that can establish it as not made by humans, that is, you cannot show it. Because you are seen to have the same nature as the worldly language that is made and established as a result of humans. If you admit, then all the arguments you have said, elaborately explaining that can establish it as not made by humans, will become pervasively wrong. Furthermore, the author