Chinese
如果瓶子等显现是空性，那么在您的宗派里就变成胜义谛真实了。如果不是空性，那么一切法都变成空无，这就有矛盾。他空宗派认为有三种空性，三种无自性。因为不认为这些是胜义谛，所以没有内在矛盾，而且产生了卓越的宗派。世俗谛的空分不是胜义谛，胜义谛的显现分也不是世俗谛。这表明一切法空性与自空是相违的。 因为自空超越了唯识，所以是中观，但不是中观的究竟。仅仅是空性，不是空性的究竟。是了义，但不是了义的究竟。理由是，说自空的人即使是中观，也不承认是究竟，那么算什么中观呢？研究自空的论典时，没有中观。他空宗派即使研究也认为是中观。不认为自己所认为的究竟是中观，这样的大中观没有什么可惊奇的。如果这样也行，那么不承认唯识的唯识宗，以及小乘经部的僧众，不承认经部的经部师和毗婆沙师，如果不接受毗婆沙，那又有什么呢？难道不是在任何情况下理由都相同吗？自空宗派不可能存在空性，因为在胜义谛中不存在，所以不是究竟。仅仅是否定，没有究竟不究竟，因为没有界和非界等等。所以，胜义谛界也不可能存在。或者，空性和胜义谛界，为什么不会变成世俗谛呢？在分别念面前的对境，以及所见的虚假对境，在观察面前不存在，以及无真实的世俗谛。如果不成立，那么用什么来成立世俗谛呢？如果成立，那么胜义谛界就变成真实的了。因为不是世俗谛，所以真实存在，在观察面前存在。因为认为圆成实，如果不是中观，那么认为离戏也变成不是中观了。如果说有承认真实和不承认真实的差别，我们不承认具有相状戏论的真实。像这样远离戏论的真实，如果自空论者连方向都没有理解，那么就从来没有对它进行过驳斥。否定真实成立的程度，就是否定戏论的真实，因为在这里运用了否定世俗谛的理路。这在我们的宗派里也是承认的，对于圆成实，戏论的真
English
If appearances like pots are emptiness, then in your system it becomes ultimately true. If it is not emptiness, then all phenomena contradict being empty. Those who hold other-emptiness assert three kinds of emptiness and three aspects of selflessness. Because they do not consider that to be ultimately true, there is no internal contradiction and an excellent philosophical system arises. The empty part of the conventional is not ultimate, and the appearing part of the ultimate is not conventional. This shows that the emptiness of all phenomena contradicts only self-emptiness. Because self-emptiness transcends mind-only, it is Madhyamaka, but not the ultimate of Madhyamaka. It is merely emptiness, not the ultimate emptiness. It is definitive meaning, but not the ultimate definitive meaning. The reason is that those who speak of self-emptiness, even if they are Madhyamaka, do not accept the ultimate, so what kind of Madhyamaka is it? When examining self-empty texts, there is no Madhyamaka. Those who hold other-emptiness consider it to be Madhyamaka even when examined. There is nothing surprising about such a great Madhyamaka that does not consider its own ultimate to be Madhyamaka. If that is the case, then the Mind-Only school that does not accept Mind-Only, and the Hinayana Sutra collections, the Sutra masters who do not accept, and the Vaibhashikas, what is the point if they do not accept the Vaibhashika explanations? Isn't the reasoning always the same? In the self-empty system, emptiness cannot exist, because it does not exist in the ultimate, so it is not ultimate. There is no ultimate or non-ultimate in mere negation, because there is no realm or non-realm, etc. Therefore, it is impossible for there to be something called the ultimate realm. Or, why wouldn't emptiness and the ultimate realm become conventional? The object in front of conceptual thought, and the object of false seeing, non-existence in the face of examination, and the absence of truth are conventional. If it is not established, then by what is the conventional established? If it is established, then the ultimate realm becomes true. Because it is not conventional, it truly exists, it exists in the face of examination. Because it is asserted that it is perfectly established, if it is not Madhyamaka, then asserting freedom from elaboration also becomes non-Madhyamaka. If there is a difference between accepting truth and not accepting truth, we do not accept the truth of characteristics and elaboration. If the self-empty speakers do not even understand the direction of such a truth that is devoid of elaboration, then there has never been a refutation of it. The extent of negating true establishment is the negation of the truth of elaboration, because the reasoning for negating the conventional is applied here. This is also accepted in our system, the truth of elaboration for the perfectly established.
Chinese
无有是处。 若有戏论之谛则为世俗谛，说是胜义自性无。 声闻众舍弃三乘为一，如是认为的应成派也随之而行。 原因是证悟二无我相同之故。 于此，法身于声缘，有之太过无法遮止地会发生。 与法身相同而非彼者，若存在，则三身于其他也道理相同。 与佛相同，非佛等等，太过分的情况诸多会发生。 此亦是小乘宗义混杂之过失。 若说以断除所知障而有差别，此亦仅是显示断除之差别。 自性无有差别之故，无法遮止。 一切导师皆由愿力所致，以不承认智慧光明，与无余，无有差别之故，会与法身相同。 若劣者证悟一切法二无我，因见法身，则彼是小乘的，与圣者们成为共同之果。 如瓶上无柱，柱上，无瓶一般，无有差别之故，仅是否定之断除皆成一体。 因无阿赖耶，故无种子安立之处。 心与心生、色法之法灭尽之故，三乘无余为何不相同？ 仅是否定，所知障又是什么？ 无有教证开显，而于他者有教证开显。 因此，小乘圣者以一切法，证悟法无我，此不应理。 实事与假立皆是分别增广，若不证悟彼，则与证悟一切法相违。 若说不明显，则与现量不符。 因不知原因，故未证悟彼。 仅以证悟少许差别，无法区分。 承认外境与决定六识，以及遮止阿赖耶与遮止自证，以及认为声缘是皈依之处等等，于自空者，小乘宗义混杂。 如是者，是驳斥认为自空是中观究竟之观点。 若自空宗义之离戏，因是否定，故谁也无法体验。 于何处亦无有体验无实有。 若以分别念将总相作为对境，仅于遣除之相上安立为证悟则有过失。 如是乃是错乱之故，不证悟意义。 如是离戏为真实
English
There is no such thing. If there is a true phenomenon of elaboration, then it is a conventional truth, and it is said that the ultimate nature is non-existent. The Hearers abandon the three vehicles as one, and the consequentialists who believe this also follow suit. The reason is that the realization of the two selflessnesses is the same. In this case, it would be inevitable that the Dharmakaya would be present in the Hearers and Solitary Realizers. If there is something that is the same as the Dharmakaya but not it, then the same reasoning applies to the other three bodies. Being the same as the Buddha, not being the Buddha, and so on, many extreme consequences would occur. This is also a fault of mixing Hinayana tenets. If it is said that the difference lies in the abandonment of the obscurations of knowledge, this only shows the difference in abandonment. Since there is no difference in nature, it cannot be prevented. All teachers are due to the power of aspiration. By not acknowledging the light of wisdom, there is no difference from the absence of remainder, and therefore it becomes the same as the Dharmakaya. If the inferior ones realize the two selflessnesses of all phenomena, then since they see the Dharmakaya, it becomes a common result with the noble ones of the Hinayana. Just as there is no pillar on a vase, and no vase on a pillar, since there is no difference, all abandonments that are merely negations become one. Since there is no basis of all, there is no place to establish seeds. Since the phenomena of mind, mental factors, and matter cease, why are the three vehicles not the same without remainder? What are the obscurations of knowledge in mere negation? There is no scriptural clarification, but there is scriptural clarification for others. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the noble ones of the Hinayana realize the selflessness of phenomena in all phenomena. All that exists as substance and imputation is the proliferation of conceptualization. If that is not realized, it contradicts the realization of all phenomena. If it is said that it is not clear, it is not compatible with direct perception. Since the reason is not known, it is not realized. It is not possible to distinguish merely by the difference in the entry of realization. The acceptance of external objects and the determination of the six consciousnesses, as well as the negation of the basis of all and the negation of self-awareness, and the belief that Hearers and Solitary Realizers are objects of refuge, etc., are mixed with Hinayana tenets for those who believe in self-emptiness. This is a refutation of the view that self-emptiness is the ultimate Madhyamaka. If the freedom from elaboration of the self-empty system is a negation, then no one can experience it. There is no experience of non-existence anywhere. If conceptual thought takes the general meaning as its object, it is a mistake to establish realization merely on the aspect of elimination. Such is delusion, therefore the meaning is not realized. Such freedom from elaboration is true.
Chinese
若真实成立，否则世俗诸法与无实相同。诸佛等胜妙智慧，于离戏论中，若显现，则于彼前存在故，彼即成真实。若不显现，则世俗胜义二者，于圣者之见前，无有而成相同。以智慧不谬误而见无有故，离戏论转为谬误，故于谬误相同。彼时则不能区分世俗胜义，恒常相同，若有二，则胜义谛，趋入世俗实物，而成贤妙。真实义中，无有相同之世俗，于错乱前起作用，胜义亦非如是。如今汝等，世俗以量成立，胜义决定无有，取决于此种观点。如此无耻之见，应受呵责。世间未经观察之前，诸法皆有，经观察则无有，此说应观察。世俗于胜义中无有，于世俗中，有，此说乃观察之境。世间世俗与胜义无有差别，依汝之宗，世俗与胜义有。彼二者应许于二谛中皆无。显现之世俗，彼即是空性，是胜义谛，然世俗显现不灭。于决定前，舍弃实执故，舍弃二边。若如是，则汝不许胜义显现。于等持前，彼显现无有故，将堕入无有边，故非中观。于二谛世俗胜义一切时，说有相同、无相同、相等。胜义中不可能有，世俗中，一切皆有，此说相违。以胜义于世俗中存在之故，世俗亦于彼中存在，以一切相同之故。若胜义于世俗中存在，则胜义将成世俗，如存在于人中之有情是人一般。此外，胜义应成立为胜义，否则，以成立之故，将成立为世俗。或者，胜义之基础将不成。是故，胜义成立为殊胜之义。若胜义于错乱前显现而存在，则证悟胜义之智慧是错乱的，且将成以错乱而证悟空性。后世中观之观点若如此，以世俗有之故，智慧将成错乱。若等持错乱，则后得更不用说。若于彼智慧前，世俗显现，则
English
If it is truly established, otherwise all conventional phenomena are the same as the unreal. The supreme wisdom of the Buddhas, etc., in freedom from elaboration, if it appears, then because it exists before it, it becomes true. If it does not appear, then the two, conventional and ultimate, become the same in the sight of the noble ones, as non-existent. Because wisdom sees non-existence without error, freedom from elaboration turns into error, so it is the same in error. Then one cannot distinguish between conventional and ultimate, they are always the same, and if there are two, then the ultimate truth enters into conventional reality and becomes excellent. In the true meaning, the conventional, which is the same as non-existence, functions before delusion, but the ultimate is not like that either. Now, you all, the conventional is established by valid cognition, and it depends on the view that the ultimate is definitely non-existent. Such a shameless view deserves to be condemned. In the world, before investigation, all things exist, but saying that they do not exist after investigation should be investigated. The conventional is non-existent in the ultimate, and existent in the conventional, this saying is the object of investigation. In the world, there is no difference between conventional and ultimate, according to your system, there are conventional and ultimate. Those two should be accepted as non-existent in either of the two truths. The appearing conventional is emptiness, which is the ultimate truth, but the conventional appearance does not cease. Because of abandoning the clinging to truth before determination, both extremes are abandoned. If so, then you do not accept the appearance of the ultimate. Because that appearance is non-existent before equipoise, it will fall into the extreme of non-existence, so it is not Madhyamaka. In all cases of the two truths, conventional and ultimate, it is said that existence is the same, non-existence is the same, and they are equal. It is impossible to exist in the ultimate, and in the conventional, everything exists, this saying is contradictory. Because the ultimate exists in the conventional, the conventional also exists in it, because everything is the same. If the ultimate exists in the conventional, then the ultimate will become conventional, just as a being existing in a human is a human. Furthermore, the ultimate must be established as the ultimate, otherwise, because it is established, it will be established as conventional. Or, the basis of the ultimate will not be established. Therefore, the ultimate is established as the meaning of the supreme. If the ultimate exists because it appears before delusion, then the wisdom that realizes the ultimate is deluded, and it will become that emptiness is realized by delusion. If the view of later Madhyamikas is like this, then because the conventional exists, wisdom will become deluded. If equipoise is deluded, then what to say of subsequent attainment? If the conventional appears before that wisdom, then