Chinese
如果说，通过预先考虑而造作而成，所以没有过失。那么，陶罐等有法，以世界之所处和身体等由常恒的士夫预先考虑而造作而成来成立的顺喻不成，因为见到众多无常的士夫造作的缘故。或者，安放和形状等有法，以世界之所处和身体等由超胜的具慧士夫预先考虑而造作而成来成立的因不是正确的因，因为对成立它的差别，自在天自己也犹豫而不能确定之故。此外，随顺自主加持的士夫的有无而进退的安放和形状等如何，那有法，在你方作为自方之法极成立的基础上，凡是由自主作者的士夫预先考虑而造作而成来推断，那才是正理，因为对它不会错乱的缘故。还有，与山等形状相异的宫殿等形状的事物，由自主作者的士夫预先考虑而造作而成，普遍成立形状之总，因为在形状上没有差别的缘故，这样的因有法，凡是由自主作者的士夫预先考虑而造作而成来推断，那不是正理，如同不能从灰色的事物之总来推断一样，因为你对它周遍错乱的缘故。如果说，仅仅相似于士夫所造的形状，不能成立是由士夫所造，如果不是那样而能成立，那么，蚁穴也有法，将变成由陶师所造而成立，因为陶师造作陶罐和陶碗等泥土的某些形态，并且与那些在泥土的形态上仅仅相似的缘故。如果说，在仅仅安立形状作为因上，以形状的差别来安立而责难，是与结果相同的后破，那么，果，所作之总有法，你也是成立声音是无常的正确之因，因为在成立它的方面作为法极成立，并且对所成立之法的随行周遍真实确定的缘故。如果那样，具有关联的声音和瓶子本身是各异的。
English
If it is said that there is no fault because it is accomplished by having been made after prior consideration, then, the example of establishing that pottery and other things, the world's location and body, etc., are made by a permanent person after prior consideration is not established, because many impermanent people are seen to make them. Or, placement and shape, etc., are the subject. The sign that establishes that the world's location and body, etc., are made by a superior, intelligent person after prior consideration is not a valid sign, because the Lord himself is uncertain and unsure about the distinction of establishing it. Furthermore, whatever the placement and shape, etc., that follow the presence or absence of a self-empowered person, that is the subject. Whatever inference is made from the fact that a self-acting person's mind precedes the making of something, based on the well-established basis of your own side's dharma, is indeed logical, because there is no confusion about it. Furthermore, the shape of a mansion, etc., which is different from the shape of a mountain, etc., is made by a self-acting person's mind preceding it, and it is generally established that it is similar in shape, because there is no difference in shape. That sign is the subject. Whatever inference is made from the fact that a self-acting person's mind precedes the making of something is not logical, just as one cannot infer from the general category of gray objects, because you are mistaken about its pervasiveness. If it is said that it is not established that something is made by a person because it is only similar in shape to something made by a person, but if it is not so, then it can be established, then the anthill is also the subject. It will become established that it is made by the potter, because the potter makes some forms of clay, such as clay pots and clay bowls, and they are only similar in the form of clay. If it is said that when only the shape is established as a sign, criticizing by relying on the difference in shape is a consequence that is the same as the result, then the general category of produced effects is the subject. You also have a valid sign that establishes that sound is impermanent, because it is established as a dharma on the side of establishing it, and because the pervasiveness of following the dharma to be established is truly certain. If that is the case, then the related sound and the vase itself are different.
Chinese
因此，声音的造作不会随顺于瓶子。瓶子的造作不会随顺于声音，因此，以“声音是无常”的成立之相不是正确的，这是从造作的差别上区分而提出的责难，是同果反驳。因为对于以能成立声音是无常的造作的共同特点作为理由，是从造作的差别上进行考察而提出的驳斥。一般来说，同果反驳的自性是这样的，但在这里，仅仅以作为成立依据的形状，就能成立所要成立的事物，因此，依附于形状的差别而提出的责难驳斥，不是同果反驳。仅仅形状不能成为成立依据的理由是，具有形状的种类的差别，比如对于测量室等形状，通过自主者的意念事先进行造作而成立，并且形状这个词语的共同特点，在运用上被视为相同，这是有法。从你（的角度）来说，山等的形状，通过自主者的意念事先进行造作而成立的说法是不合理的。语言方面和土地等方面是有法，是有角的，因为“牛”这个词语本身就在运用，就像“因为是有角的，所以是牛”一样，因为在那里普遍性是错误的。还有，“牛”这个词语都是有法，你并非在任何可表达的意义上都不存在，因为仅仅是受表达意愿的支配而运用。因此，所有的人是有法，所有显现意愿的事物，都应该毫不费力地轻易实现，因为仅仅存在表达的词语，就能实现所要表达的意义。通过这个证明仅仅依靠词语无法实现意义的道理，就是一种考察。什么和怎么样呢？比如，胜论派和裸体派等依次对于佛教徒的智慧和快乐是有法，因为是无常和有生等的缘故，也是无心和非有等，以及树是有法，剥皮就会死亡，因此是有心的，这两个理由是有法，依次来说，那不是成立的正确理由，因为那两个反驳者的你们两个的名字是有法。
English
Therefore, the createdness of sound does not follow the pot. The createdness of the pot does not follow the sound, therefore, the sign of establishing that "sound is impermanent" is not correct, this is a fault-finding that is distinguished from the difference of createdness, and it is considered a counter-argument of equal result. Because for the reason of the general characteristic of createdness that can establish that sound is impermanent, the refutation of fault-finding based on the difference of createdness is made. In general, the nature of the counter-argument of equal result is like that, but here, only the shape that is stated as the means of proof can establish what is to be established, therefore, the refutations of fault-finding attached to the difference of shape are not counter-arguments of equal result. The reason why shape alone cannot be a means of proof is also that the difference of the type with shape, such as the shape of the measuring room, etc., is established by first putting the mind of the self-maker into action, and the general characteristic of the word shape is seen as the same in application, this is the subject. From your perspective, it is unreasonable to establish that the shape of mountains, etc., is made by first putting the mind of the self-maker into action. The language side and the land, etc., are the subject, they have horns, because the word "cow" itself is used, just like "because it has horns, it is a cow", because the generality is mistaken there. Also, all the words "cow" are the subject, you are not non-existent in any expressible meaning, because it is only used under the control of the intention to express. Therefore, all people are the subject, and all things that appear to be intended should be easily accomplished without effort, because the meaning to be expressed is accomplished only by the existence of the expressing word. This reasoning, which shows that meaning cannot be accomplished by word alone, is an examination. What and how is it? For example, the Samkhya and the Naked Ascetics, etc., respectively, for the Buddha's intelligence and happiness are the subject, because they are impermanent and have birth, etc., they are also mindless and non-existent, etc., and the tree is the subject, if the bark is peeled off, it will die, therefore it is sentient, these two signs are the subject, respectively, that is not the correct sign of establishment, because the names of you two opponents are the subject.
Tibetan
་གྱི་སྟེང་དུ་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་གྲུབ་ཀྱང་དོན་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ་ཞེས་སོ། ཁྱབ་སྟེ་མ་གྲུབ་པའི་རྟགས་འདིའི་ཚུལ་ལམ་རང་བཞིན་འདི་ནི་རྟགས་སུ་བཟུང་བའི་དངོས་པོའི་ངོ་བོ་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་སྟེང་དུ་རྒོལ་བ་གཉིས་ཀས་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེས་ན་བྱས་པ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་པར་བུམ་པའི་བྱས་པ་དེ་སྒྲའི་སྟེང་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་ཀྱང་ཁྱོད་སྒྲ་མི་རྟག་སྒྲུབ་ཀྱི་ཕྱོགས་ཆོས་སུ་འགྲུབ་པ་ལ་གནོད་བྱེད་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཁྱོད་སྒྲའི་སྟེང་དུ་འགོད་ཚུལ་དང་མཐུན་པར་གྲུབ་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དཔེར་ན་སྒྲའི་སྟེང་དུ་ནམ་མཁའི་ཡོན་ཏན་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་བྱས་པ་མ་གྲུབ་པས་སྒྲའི་སྟེང་དུ་ཕྱོགས་ཆོས་མ་གྲུབ་པར་མི་འགྱུར་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །གལ་ཏེ་གང་ལ་དོན་གྲུབ་ལ་མིང་མ་གྲུབ་པ་དེ་ལ་ཅིར་འགྱུར་ཞེ་ན། ཤེས་བྱ་ཆོས་ཅན། རྟགས་སུ་གཟུང་བྱའི་སྒྲའི་མིང་དེ་ཆོས་ཅན་གྱི་སྟེང་དུ་རྒོལ་བ་གཉིས་ཀའི་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་ཀྱང་རྟགས་ཀྱི་དངོས་པོ་སྟེ་དོན་ནི་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་གྲུབ་ན་བསྒྲུབ་བྱ་གྲུབ་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ་དོན་ལས་དོན་གྲུབ་ཀྱི་སྒྲ་ཙམ་ལས་དོན་གྲུབ་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། དཔེར་ན་འུག་པའི་ཆ་བྱད་འཛིན་པའི་བདེ་བྱེད་ཀྱི་སློབ་མར་གྲགས་པ་གཟེག་གཟན་ནམ་འུག་ཕྲུག་པ་ལ་སངས་རྒྱས་པས་འབྱུང་བཞིའི་རྡུལ་ཕྲན་ཆོས་ཅན། མི་རྟག་སྟེ་ལུས་ཅན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་སོགས་པས་ཐོགས་བཅས་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། བུམ་པ་བཞིན་ཞེས་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དུ་བཤད་པ་ན། སངས་རྒྱས་པས་ལུས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒྲའི་དོན་དུ་འདོད་པའི་འབྱུང་བཞིའི་རྡུལ་ཕྲན་ལ་སོགས་པ་རེག་བྱ་ཅན་ལ་ལུས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒྲ་བྱེ་བྲག་པ་ལ་མ་གྲུབ། བྱེ་བྲག་པས་ལུས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒྲའི་དོན་དུ་འདོད་པའི་ཐམས་ཅད་དུ་སོང་བ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་རྫས་ཀྱི་ཚད་ལ་ལུས་ཅན་གྱི་སྒྲ་སངས་རྒྱས་པ་ལ་མ་གྲུབ་ཀྱང་། མངོན་པར་འདོད་པའི་དོན་རེག་བྱ་ཅན་དེ་འབྱུང་བའི་རྡུལ་ཕྲ་རབ་དང་བུམ་པ་ལ་རྒོལ་བ་གཉིས་ཀས་མཐུན་སྣང་དུ་གྲུབ་པས་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དུ་མ་གྲུབ་པར་མི་འགྱུར་བ་བཞིན་ནོ། །དེས་ན་ཤེས་བྱ་ཆོས་ཅན། རྟགས་སུ་གཟུང་བྱའི་དོན་དེ་ཉིད་བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་ཆོས་ལ་འཁྲུལ་པ་དང་ཕྱོགས་ཆོས་སུ་མ་གྲུབ་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡིན་ན་སྒྲའམ་མིང་འཁྲུལ་པ་མེད་ན་ཡང་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་སྐྱོན་ལྡན་དུ་ཤེས་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་ཆོས་ལ་མི་འཁྲུལ་བའི་རྟགས་སུ་གཟུང་བྱའི་དངོས་པོའི་དོན་ལས་བསྒྲུབ་བྱའི་ཆོས་ཀྱི་དངོས་པོའི་དོན་གྲུབ་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་སྒྲ་ཙམ་ལས་གྲུབ་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ
Chinese
之所以说“在名言上成立，但在实义上不成立”的原因就在于此。这种周遍不成立的相或自性，是因为作为理由所取的法之体性，在有法上，对立双方都不共许成立。因此，所作性有法，你的差别，瓶子的所作性，虽然在声上不成立，但你对于成立声无常的同品周遍是不相违的，因为你与在声上安立的方式相符而成立。例如，在声上，不成立依赖虚空功德的所作性，因此不会变成在声上不成立同品周遍。如果说，对于某事物，实义成立而名称不成立，那会怎么样呢？所知有法，作为理由所取的声的名称，虽然在有法上，对立双方都不共许成立，但理由的实物，也就是实义，如果在名言上成立，那么所要成立的法就会成立，因为是从实义上成立实义，而不是仅仅从名称上成立实义。例如，佛教徒对以猫头鹰的姿态来摄受弟子的善知识，即被称为“食残”或“猫头鹰之子”者说：四大极微有法，是无常的，因为是有身，等等，因为是有碍触，就像瓶子一样。当这样陈述能立时，佛教徒所承许的作为有身之声的意义的四大极微等触所触，对于分别论者来说，有身之声并不成立。分别论者所承许的作为有身之声的意义的并非周遍存在的物质的量，对于佛教徒来说，有身之声并不成立。但是，显现承许的意义，也就是触所触，对于四大极微和瓶子，对立双方都共许成立，因此不会变成能立不成立。因此，所知有法，如果作为理由所取的实义本身，与所要成立的法相混淆，或者不成立同品周遍等等，那么即使名称或声音没有混淆，也应当知晓能立是有过失的，因为从不与所要成立的法相混淆的作为理由所取的实物的意义上，成立所要成立的法的实物的意义，而不是仅仅从声音上成立。
English
The reason for saying "established nominally but not established in reality" is this. This aspect or nature of pervasiveness that is not established is because the essence of the object taken as the reason is not commonly accepted by both opponents on the subject. Therefore, subject, what is made, your distinction, the made-ness of a pot, although it is not established on sound, it is not contradictory to your being established as a positive instance in proving that sound is impermanent, because you are established in accordance with the way of establishing it on sound. For example, on sound, the made-ness that relies on the qualities of space is not established, so it does not become that the positive instance is not established on sound. If it is said, what happens if the meaning is established but the name is not established? Subject, knowable, the name of sound taken as the reason, although it is not commonly accepted by both opponents on the subject, if the object of the reason, that is, the meaning, is established nominally, then what is to be proven will be established, because the meaning is established from the meaning, and not just the meaning is established from the sound. For example, when the Buddhist says to the well-wisher disciple who adopts the appearance of an owl, who is known as "food remnants" or "owl child": subject, particles of the four elements, are impermanent, because they have a body, etc., because they are tangible, like a pot, when stating the proof, the sound of having a body, which the Buddhist accepts as the meaning of the four elements, etc., which are tangible, the sound of having a body is not established for the specific one. The quantity of matter that is not all-pervasive, which the specific one accepts as the meaning of the sound of having a body, the sound of having a body is not established for the Buddhist. However, the meaning that is manifestly accepted, that is, what is tangible, is commonly accepted by both opponents for the minute particles of the elements and the pot, so it does not become that the proof is not established. Therefore, subject, knowable, if the meaning of the object taken as the reason itself is confused with the dharma to be proven, or is not established as a positive instance, etc., then even if the name or sound is not confused, it should be known that the proof is flawed, because the meaning of the object of the dharma to be proven is established from the meaning of the object taken as the reason that is not confused with the dharma to be proven, and not just established from the sound.