Chinese
萨迦派的， 观想简要开示中他空明显。 其他现在未见以虚假作何用？ 自己的宗派无有明确依据的情况下， 对其他的殊胜论典进行诋毁， 不是被偏执的邪魔所迷惑了吗？ 有些说慈氏五论是自空， 只不过是自己圈子里权力大的话语罢了。 由于汉藏大多数不认可，所以舍弃。 有些藏人说从头到尾都是自空， 一个论典本身存在两种宗派的过失， 特别是与各自的论典直接相违背。 无著胜者对了义不了义进行辨别的， 甚深释论中，授记清楚地存在。 此外，世亲派系的巨象， 以及法称、宝生、寂护等， 都是胜者亲自给予殊胜的授记， 而智慧藏和佛护， 善护月称圣狮子等， 从哪个经续中授记请说出来。 世亲等，智慧藏以， 大车来宣扬，吉祥月称也， 多闻且赐予精通的印记。 如果需要人生的释论论师， 胜者授记的那些都是说他空。 其他那些也是殊胜的圣者， 但无法与获得授记的那些相比。 例如，月称在《楞伽经》中， 依靠而解释为唯识宗的观点。 世亲则是依靠《解深密经》， 依靠三相无自性， 而解释为宣说无自性。 经的教证和理证相同等同， 贤哲世亲的教证理证最坚固。 与世间六庄严相同的其他智者， 在印度的谁是著书立说者？ 自空宗的论典是最好的量， 特别是应成派的论者是最好的， 但是一切种子的阿赖耶识， 虽然遮止了，但阿赖耶识的本体没有遮止。 所知能知，所显能显，以及， 忆念经验能力依赖于自明， 遮止也无法遮止仅仅是自明。 他起有自性虽然遮止了，但圆成实不是。 自心自性光明相续不断， 这样的在中观论典中没有遮止。 特别是没有宣说阿赖耶识智慧， 因此对于有无在那里没有授记。 具足妙相的精华正直。
English
Of the Sakya school, In the concise presentation of views, other-emptiness is clear. What is the use of falsehood when others are not seen now? While one's own system lacks clear sources, To denigrate all the supreme treatises of others, Isn't that being misled by the demon of bias? Some say that the Five Treatises of Maitreya are self-empty, But that is merely a powerful statement within one's own circle. Since most Chinese and Tibetans do not accept it, it is abandoned. Some Tibetans say that from beginning to end it is self-empty, There is the fault of having two philosophical tenets within one treatise itself, Especially since it directly contradicts each of their own treatises. The Victorious Asanga, who distinguishes between definitive and interpretable meanings, In the profound commentary, the prophecy clearly exists. Furthermore, the elephant of the Vasubandhu lineage, As well as Dharmakirti, Ratnakaraśānti, Śāntarakṣita, etc., All were given supreme prophecies by the Victorious One himself, While Jñānagarbha and Buddhapālita, Śīlabhadra, Candrakīrti, Āryasimha, etc., From which sutra or tantra were they prophesied, please tell. Vasubandhu, etc., were greatly proclaimed by Jñānagarbha with, The great chariot, and the auspicious Candrakīrti also, Heard much and bestowed the seal of being learned. If you need a human commentator on the profound meaning, Those prophesied by the Victorious One all speak of other-emptiness. Those others are also supreme holy beings, But they cannot compete with those who have attained prophecy. For example, Candrakīrti in the Laṅkāvatāra Sutra, Relied upon it and explained it as the view of the Mind-Only school. Vasubandhu, on the other hand, relied on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sutra, And relying on the three aspects of no self-nature, He explained that it teaches no self-nature. The scriptural authority and reasoning of the sutras are equal, The scriptural authority and reasoning of the wise Vasubandhu are the most solid. Who in India is the author of treatises, Like the six ornaments of the world? Even though the treatises of the self-empty school are the best valid cognition, And especially the proponents of the consequentialist school are the best, The knowable, the knowing, the manifestable, the manifesting, and, The ability to remember and experience depends on self-awareness, Negation cannot negate merely self-awareness. Other-powered truly established is negated, but not the perfectly established. The self-nature of one's own mind, the continuity of luminosity is uninterrupted, Such things are not negated in the Madhyamaka treatises. Therefore, whether it exists or not, there is no prophecy there. The essence of the one with marks and signs is upright.
Chinese
总而言之，仅仅是不遮止希求的如来藏而已。这指的是对开创者、宗义、大小教派以及后来的藏人的评判。这些是从经文的论证中引申出来的，用易懂的方式表达。 再者，有些人说，他空宗的观点与数论派相同，因此是错误的观点。如果是唯识，则与外道相违。自认为《俱舍论》等是伟大的善说。认为甚深宗义与外道相同，这是被嫉妒魔鬼附身的疯话。如果一切相同，那因为是外道之故，四宗的差别将不复存在。如果因为某一方面相似就变成那样，那么声闻二部就与胜论派相同。瑜伽行派与数论派相同，裸体外道也与比丘们相同。修慈悲心也变成外道之法。修持密咒与自在天派相同。 遍入天的《五支经》中也说： “仅仅是名称而已，已经完全超越，舍弃了有和无的分别，从产生和收集中获得解脱，那被称为财神之子。有之中没有有性，无之中也没有有性，从有和无中解脱，谁能知道，那就是智慧。” 还有，自在天的《庄严结合》中也说：“独子梵天是至上的真理，智慧的自在天无边无际，仅仅说存在，那也被称为束缚。” 因此，这些和自空宗的观点也非常相似，除了稍微有一点不同之外。因此没有差别。这些外道的经文被引用在《中观庄严论》的自释中。 我曾从一些婆罗门班智达那里听到过遍入天的千名、大小心咒之歌、吉祥之歌、立誓之歌、自在天的桑巴达等等，以及各种数论派的论典（出自《ཛཾ》）。数论派的真假二者，虽然在见解上一致，但术语几乎都不相同。一些术语与密宗经典相同。遍入天的论典与应成派相同。自在天派也像自续派一样宣说。主张作者是他们的特点。
English
In short, it is merely not obstructing the desire for the Tathagatagarbha. This refers to the judgment of the founders, the tenets, the size of the sects, and the later Tibetans. These are derived from the scriptural arguments and expressed in an easy-to-understand way. Furthermore, some say that the Shentong view is the same as the Samkhya school, therefore it is a wrong view. If it is Chittamatra, it contradicts the heretics. They consider the Abhidharmakosha, etc., to be great good sayings. Thinking that the profound tenets are the same as the heretics is the mad talk of being possessed by the demon of jealousy. If everything is the same, then because it is a heretical path, the distinctions of the four schools will no longer exist. If something becomes that because it is similar in one aspect, then the two Hinayana schools are the same as the Vaisheshika. The Yogachara is the same as the Samkhya, and the naked ascetics are also the same as the monks. Meditating on compassion also becomes a heretical practice. Practicing secret mantras is the same as the Maheshvara. In the Vishnu's Pancharatra it is also said: "It is only a name, it has completely transcended, abandoned the distinction between existence and non-existence, liberated from production and collection, that is called the son of the god of wealth. There is no existence in existence, and there is no existence in non-existence. Liberated from existence and non-existence, whoever knows that is wisdom." Also, in the Shiva's Ornament Combination it is said: "The only son Brahma is the supreme truth, the wisdom of the Maheshvara is infinite, merely saying that it exists, that is also called bondage." Therefore, these and the Rangtong view are also very similar, except for a slight difference. Therefore, there is no difference. These heretical scriptures are quoted in the auto-commentary of the Madhyamakalankara. I have heard from some Brahmin Panditas the thousand names of Vishnu, the large and small heart mantra songs, the auspicious songs, the oath-taking songs, the Sambada of Maheshvara, etc., and various Samkhya treatises (from 《ཛཾ》). The true and false of the Samkhya school, although consistent in view, the terminology is almost entirely different. Some terminologies are the same as the tantric scriptures. The Vishnu's treatises are the same as the Prasangika. The Maheshvara also proclaims like the Svatantrika. Asserting the agent is their characteristic.
Chinese
在二者相似之处相同的情况下，由于在外道宗义中，数论派最为殊胜而闻名，因此佛教的这种观点也最为殊胜。有些人说存在，并认为这是束缚；有些人说圆成实性存在，并认为这是束缚。看看除了汉藏之外，还有什么区别？如果遵循圣者诸佛的教言，则他空合理，自空则不然。因为有些人对教言没有定解，所以现在需要以理证来成立。建立没有任何教理和理证的自宗。虽然非常需要以理证来成立，但甚深之处应以量士夫的教言来成立。如果说通过修持无数三昧而证悟的教言是虚假的，那么凡夫的思虑为何是量？此外，对于极其隐蔽的事物，教言是量，因此必须这样思考。这段话是为了消除将他空与外道混淆的争论。 对于不成一和多之分别观察，这些会涉及有为法，而非无为法，无为法既非一亦非多。虚空等不属于这种区分。然而，仅仅是由于错乱的念头而假立，实际上没有任何自性，因此它是不存在的。因为你的宗义是否定法性不存在，所以因为什么都没有，所以它没有变化。如果存在方向和时间的组成部分之区分，那么它就不可能不变。如果存在方向，则不是根识的对境，并且不存在；时间是过去等三时，因此是变化的。通过遮止生等，并不能遮止法界。这种智慧也是不生不灭的。在圣者中观的论典中，关于因缘、来去、相状特征，以及前后边际、因果、缘起等等，所有这些无边的理证观察，都只适用于世俗，而不适用于其他。因为因等一切都只是世俗，所以会变成法性，而不依赖于有法。名言依赖于有法，没有自性。法性是自性，是分别安立的。因为没有因果的依赖成立，所以不是缘起。这段话是为了说明从自空的理证中解脱出来。 一切法皆空是他空宗的特点。一切法无自性是他空宗的特点。对于自空论者来说，光明和显现，因为不希望空，所以只是口头上说说而已。
English
In the case where two things are similar, and the same, because the Samkhya school is renowned as the most excellent among the non-Buddhist philosophical systems, this view of Buddhism is also the most excellent. Some say that existence is bondage, and some say that the perfectly established reality is existence and bondage. Look at what differences there are besides the Chinese and Tibetan ones. If we follow the words of the Buddhas with their sons, then other-emptiness is reasonable, but self-emptiness is not like that. Because some people have no certainty about the scriptures, it is now necessary to establish it with reasoning. Establishing one's own system without both scripture and reasoning. Although it is very necessary to establish it with reasoning, the profound state should be established by the scriptures of a reliable person. If the scriptures seen through meditating on countless samadhis are false, then why is the thought of an ordinary person reliable? Furthermore, the scriptures are reliable for things that are very hidden. So, one must think like that. This is to avoid the argument that other-emptiness is similar to non-Buddhists. The analytical observation that does not establish one and many, these will involve conditioned dharmas, but not unconditioned dharmas, unconditioned dharmas are neither one nor many. The distinctions such as space do not fall into this. However, it is merely imputed by a mistaken mind, and since there is no essence whatsoever, therefore it is non-existent. Because your system denies that the nature of reality exists, since there is nothing, therefore there is no change in it. If there is a distinction of parts of direction and time, then it is impossible for it not to change. If there is direction, then it is not the object of sense consciousness, and it does not exist; time is the three times such as past, therefore it is subject to change. By negating birth and so on, this dharmadhatu is not negated. This wisdom is also unborn and unceasing. In the great and small treatises of the noble Madhyamaka, all those endless logical analyses regarding cause and condition, coming and going, signs and characteristics, and prior and subsequent limits, cause and effect, dependent origination, etc., all apply only to the conventional, and not to others. Because causes and so on are all merely conventional, they will become the nature of reality, and do not depend on the subject of dharma. Nominal terms depend on the subject of dharma, and have no self-nature. The nature of reality is self-nature, which is established separately. Because there is no dependent establishment of cause and effect, it is not dependent origination. This is to show liberation from the reasoning of self-emptiness. All dharmas are empty is the characteristic of the other-emptiness school. All dharmas are without self-nature is the characteristic of the other-emptiness school. For those who speak of self-emptiness, clarity and appearance, because they do not want emptiness, they only take the words.