Chinese
我未曾说有， 众多特点在此却显示为有。 五法、三自性与八识， 这些大乘不共的法相术语， 在最后法轮的经藏中极其广博。 中间时而不明，时而简略宣说。 最初是不了义，最后也是不了义， 如果这两者必须有更多共同之处， 那么最初和最后的示现方式就极为不同。 这便是从三转法轮的了义与不了义出发，从而将后者确立为殊胜。 即使是三法轮的同一密意要点， 声闻部、自空宗、 唯识宗与他空宗， 他们的观点各异，差别极大。 从寂护、解脱军等追随者开始， 其他的自空论者认为世俗谛， 与声闻二部相同。 唯识与他空在世俗的安立上相同， 自空论者与声闻部相同， 他空论者与唯识宗更为接近。 他们既不是声闻部，也不是唯识宗。 《楞伽经》中说超越了唯识宗。 唯识宗的观点是识有自性成立。 法界不是识，因此这并不相同。 虽然未曾宣说究竟的三乘庄严， 但一乘、三乘、种姓断绝的有无， 以及三自性和二谛的承认与否， 这些不是唯识与中观的差别。 四宗都对二谛进行了安立， 三自性也在《般若经》中有所阐述。 圣者在《菩提心释》中也有宣说。 经中也说了暂时的种姓断绝。 由于宣说了所有众生都具有如来藏， 因此在《经庄严论》中也遮止了究竟的种姓断绝。 由于是究竟，因此宣说唯一乘。 自空论者也承认暂时的三乘。 在《慈氏请问经》的章节中也说了与之相同。 由于一些自空论者也承认世俗的唯识， 那还要愚者作什么区分呢？ 胜者所说的超越与不超越唯识宗， 以及妙音所说的《妙吉祥面谕》， 同样，圣天与寂天， 观世音所造的续部注释中， 所说的一切都归于同一种安立。 具有能取所取显现的识， 其自性是从能取所取中解脱的自性成立， 并且认为其是胜义和真如。
English
I have not said to be existent, Yet many characteristics here show it to be existent. The five dharmas, three natures, and eight consciousnesses, These Mahayana's uncommon Dharma terms, Are extremely extensive in the sutras of the final turning of the wheel. Sometimes unclear in between, sometimes spoken of in brief. The first is provisional meaning, and the last is also provisional meaning, If these two must have more in common, Then the way the first and last are shown is extremely different. This is based on the definitive and provisional meanings of the three turnings of the wheel, thereby establishing the latter as superior. Even the single essential point of the three wheels' intention, The Hearers, those who speak of self-emptiness, The Mind-Only school, and those who speak of other-emptiness, Their views are different, the distinctions are extremely great. Starting with Shantarakshita, Vimuktisena, and their followers, Other self-emptiness proponents consider conventional truth To be the same as the two Hearer schools. The Mind-Only and other-emptiness schools agree on conventional designations, Self-emptiness proponents agree with the Hearers, Other-emptiness proponents are more aligned with the Mind-Only school. They are neither Hearers nor Mind-Only. The Lankavatara Sutra says it transcends Mind-Only. The Mind-Only view is that consciousness is truly established. Dharmadhatu is not consciousness, so this is not the same. Although the ultimate three vehicles' adornment is not explained, Whether there is one vehicle or three, whether lineage is cut off or not, And whether the three characteristics and two truths are accepted or not, These are not distinctions between Mind-Only and Madhyamaka. All four schools make designations of the two truths, The three characteristics are also shown in the Prajnaparamita. The Noble One also speaks of them in the Bodhicitta Explanation. The sutra also speaks of temporary lineage severance. Since it is said that all beings have the Tathagatagarbha, Therefore, the Ornament of Sutras also refutes ultimate lineage severance. Since it is ultimate, it is said to be the one vehicle. Self-emptiness proponents also accept temporary three vehicles. The Maitreya Questions chapter also says it is the same. Since some self-emptiness proponents also accept conventional Mind-Only, What distinction should fools make? The Victorious One's saying of transcending or not transcending Mind-Only, And Manjushri's saying of the Manjushri Face Instructions, Likewise, Aryadeva and Jetari, In the tantra commentaries made by Avalokiteshvara, All that is said converges into the same designation. That consciousness with the appearance of grasper and grasped, Its nature is truly established, liberated from grasper and grasped, And it is considered to be ultimate truth and suchness.
Chinese
。所取和能取的形相真实成立，对于此，显现的所取能取并非真实。这些在唯识宗的宗义中宣说。实际上，如果想要事物成立为唯识，那便是唯识宗，还会有什么其他的呢？事物作为错乱显现，在心中也并非真实，为何不能超越唯识呢？当了悟了识的形相并非真实时，因为没有世俗显现，所以说是中观。如果因为有胜义显现而并非如此，那么圣者的等持智慧，也会变成并非是证悟中观的智慧。这段话是从区分中观和唯识的角度出发，成立了他空的中观。 自空论者们，虽然在口头上承认圣者龙树的教证，但有些人认为有外境，有些人则否定。有些人认为有自证，有些人则否定。有些人认为有八识，有些人则否定。即使是小乘，对于是否证悟了二无我，以及是否没有证悟等等，所有的根本宗义，都因为自己的臆造而变得各不相同，纷乱不堪。虽然在一切法仅仅是无实有这一点上达成一致，但却毫无根据地将此引导到自己的道路上，声称是随行于开创车轨者之后。对于自空论者来说，因为没有自成体系的大乘现观、律藏和经部的广释，所以仅仅是单独研究见解，在讲解三藏的论典时，有些人采用毗婆沙宗，有些人采用经部宗，有些人采用瑜伽行宗的论典。他空论者们则深入弥勒五法和无著兄弟的论典之海。因此，根本的宗义并没有不一致的地方。因为在大乘三藏的注释论典中，并没有将瑜伽行宗的论典放在其他地方，所以就像山上的无数庸才也无法压倒转轮王一样，自空的论典也无法压倒这些。有些人认为，经典是针对各种各样的所化而以密意宣说的，所以教证的权威性很强。即使以上已经驳斥过，但如果真的存在，也没有比弥勒的佛陀密意解释更殊胜的了，即使在十方世界中寻找也找不到。为了成立圣者龙树是量士夫，月称引用了《楞伽经》的授记。白净极
English
. The aspects of what is grasped and the grasper are truly established. For that, the appearance of the grasped and the grasper is not truly existent. These are explained in the tenets of the Mind-Only school. In reality, if things are desired to be established as Mind-Only, then that is the Mind-Only school, what else could it be? Since things appear as mistaken appearances and are not truly existent in the mind either, why not transcend Mind-Only? When it is realized that the aspects of consciousness are not truly existent, it is said to be Madhyamaka because there is no conventional appearance. If it were not so because there is ultimate appearance, then even the meditative wisdom of the noble ones would become not the wisdom of realizing Madhyamaka. This passage is based on distinguishing between Madhyamaka and Mind-Only, and it establishes Other-Emptiness Madhyamaka. Those who speak of Self-Emptiness, although they agree to verbally accept the words of the noble Nagarjuna, some assert external objects, while others refute them. Some assert self-awareness, while others refute it. Some assert eight consciousnesses, while others refute them. Even the Lesser Vehicle, regarding whether or not they have realized the two selflessnesses, and whether or not they have not realized them, etc., all the fundamental tenets are confused and different due to their own fabrications. Although they agree that all phenomena are merely non-truly existent, they lead this onto their own path without any basis, claiming to be following after the one who opened the chariot path. For those who speak of Self-Emptiness, because there is no self-established Great Vehicle Abhidharma, Vinaya, and extensive commentaries on the Sutras, they only examine the view separately. When explaining the doctrines of the Three Baskets, some adopt the Vaibhashika school, some the Sautrantika school, and some the Yogachara school. Those who speak of Other-Emptiness delve into the ocean of the Five Dharmas of Maitreya and the doctrines of the Asanga brothers. Therefore, there is no disagreement in the fundamental tenets. Because the Yogachara doctrines are not placed elsewhere in all the commentary doctrines of the Great Vehicle Three Baskets, just as hundreds of thousands of inferior people on a mountain cannot overpower a Chakravartin king, the Self-Emptiness doctrines cannot overpower these. Some say that the Sutras were spoken with hidden meanings for various types of disciples, so the authority of the teachings is very strong. Even if it has been refuted above, if it really exists, there is nothing more excellent than Maitreya's explanation of the Buddha's hidden meaning, even if you search in all the ten directions of the world. In order to establish the noble Nagarjuna as a reliable person, Chandrakirti quoted the prophecy from the Lankavatara Sutra. Pure white extre
Chinese
在《云雨释》中，据说将理聚阐释为他空之理。嘎拉的《无畏》等也大多与之相符。《四百论》则由寂护论师阐释为唯识中观，月称如是说。因此，圣者父子（无著、世亲）的这些论典，虽然稍微倾向于宣说自空，但这些是所要证成的，而不是能证成的。月称是随行于正量部陈那之后的，对于圣者的亲传弟子们来说，宗派没有产生差异的原因，因此应成派和自续派的诤论是后起的，所以不能作为证据。特别是《赞集》等和《次第五论》以及《菩提心释》等中宣说了他空。因此，龙树的观点两者都采纳。宝生寂静（ratnākaraśānti）清楚地阐述说，龙树和无著的宗派相同。寂护等也说与此观点一致。如果有人像遮破自证那样，各自的自证乘是明晰的，并且大多数自空都陷入应成派和自续派的诤论中，说这不是分别念的行境，这不合理。如果不承认五法和三自性等，就不能宣讲无上大乘，因此，按照授记来说，承认他空是合理的。即使可能只承认自空，但由于弥旁仁波切（mī pham mgon po）阐释为其他，因此，解深密经的论师的这个宗派更为殊胜。因为龙树自己是本尊，并且所有的大乘行者都想成佛，而且密宗续部中主要宣说了坛城，大多数显宗经典中也宣说了，并且是所有佛陀的近亲之子，对于持戒者来说也是十地自在。声闻乘也认为是佛的代理人。龙树转世为人时，最初获得了初地。在诸佛面前示现为人的形象。来源也仅仅是未来的授记，并且说声闻乘是分别念散乱者。请好好辨别解深密经论师的优劣。依靠密宗或许可以成就佛果，但为了究竟的利益，弥旁仁波切也是在无数劫之前就现前菩提了。有些人说弥勒菩萨宣说了他空，而文殊菩萨宣说了自空。文殊菩萨所著的论典在哪里呢？是宣说金刚乘甚深道之道的口诀和文殊赞。
English
In the commentary of 'Cloud Rain,' it is said that the collection of reasoning is explained as the principle of other-emptiness (gzhan stong). Ga-la's 'Fearless' and others also mostly agree with it. The 'Four Hundred Verses' is explained as Mind-Only Madhyamaka by the abbot Śāntarakṣita, as stated by Candrakīrti. Therefore, these treatises of the noble father and sons (Asaṅga and Vasubandhu), although slightly inclined to expound self-emptiness (rang stong), these are what are to be proven, not what prove. Candrakīrti is a later follower of Dignāga of the Pramāṇasamuccaya school, and for the direct disciples of the noble ones, there is no reason for sectarian differences to arise, so the debate between Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika is later, and therefore not evidence. In particular, other-emptiness is taught in the 'Collection of Praises' and the 'Five Stages' and the 'Explanation of the Awakening Mind,' etc. Therefore, Nāgārjuna takes both views. Ratnākaraśānti clearly explains that Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga have the same philosophical tenets. Śāntarakṣita and others also say that they agree with this view. If some people, like those who refute self-awareness, say that individual self-awareness vehicles are clear, and that most self-emptiness falls into the debate between Prāsaṅgika and Svātantrika, saying that this is not the domain of conceptual thought, this is not reasonable. If you do not accept the five dharmas and three natures, etc., then it is not permissible to teach the unsurpassed Great Vehicle, therefore, according to the prophecy, it is reasonable to accept other-emptiness. Even if it is possible to accept only self-emptiness, because Mipham Gonpo explained it differently, therefore, this school of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra commentators is superior. Because Nāgārjuna himself is the yidam, and all Mahāyāna practitioners want to become Buddhas, and the maṇḍala is mainly taught in the tantric scriptures, and it is also taught in most sutras, and he is the close son of all Buddhas, and he is also the master of the ten bhūmis for those who uphold the precepts. The Śrāvakas are also considered to be the representatives of the Buddha. Nāgārjuna attained the first bhūmi when he was reborn as a human. He appeared as a human being in front of the Buddhas. The source is only a future prophecy, and they say that the Śrāvakas are those whose conceptual thoughts are scattered. Please discern the good and bad of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra commentators. It may be possible to attain Buddhahood by relying on tantra, but for the ultimate benefit, Mipham Gonpo also attained enlightenment countless eons ago. Some say that Maitreya taught other-emptiness, while Mañjuśrī taught self-emptiness. Where is the treatise written by Mañjuśrī? It is the oral instruction and the praise of Mañjuśrī that teaches the profound path of Vajrayāna.