Chinese
並非指，在最後法輪所說的對象是進入各種乘，有些人進入聲聞乘，有些人進入獨覺乘，有些人進入大乘，有些人根器利，有些人根器鈍。如果這樣理解，執著於自我就不合理。這樣說也是不對的，因為當聲聞乘的人新進入大乘時，如果說存在這種無漏的法界，就會產生我執的根源。因為這樣存在，所以暫時不宣說甚深之義，而是宣說一切法無自性。因此，由於中間法輪是為已經調伏自心的人宣說的道路，所以之前沒有進入大乘，以及中間法輪調伏相續這兩者是矛盾的。因此，完全進入一切乘的意義，是因為進入一切乘而調伏了相續。因為是為根器敏銳、極度成熟的菩薩所宣說，所以這才是了義。另一方面，如果按照自空宗的觀點，初轉法輪和末轉法輪應該非常相似，但這裡並非如此，中間法輪與初轉法輪更相似，而末轉法輪與小乘極為相違，因此這才是究竟。這樣的事實是顯而易見的，因為在前兩個法輪中都沒有宣說顯現為心的觀點，也沒有宣說八識，五法三自性等的建立也從未在初轉法輪中宣說，即使在中間法輪中也沒有廣說。像這樣空掉能取所取的智慧，在那兩個法輪中都沒有宣說，而且聲聞乘認為根本沒有這種智慧。自空宗也承認此處與聲聞二部相同，除了是否認為一切法無自性之外，在宗義上沒有太大差異。如果像認為證悟一切法無自性存在於一切大乘小乘的觀點中，除了聲聞二部與證悟無自性的觀點的差別之外，三乘所修之道幾乎相同。因此，總
English
It does not mean that the object of the final wheel is entering various vehicles, some entering the Hearer vehicle, some entering the Solitary Realizer vehicle, some entering the Great Vehicle, some having sharp faculties, and some having dull faculties. If understood in this way, it would be unreasonable to be attached to self. It is also incorrect to say that, because when Hearers newly enter the Great Vehicle, if it is said that this uncontaminated realm exists, it will create the root of self-grasping. Because it exists in this way, the profound meaning is not taught for the time being, but it is said that all phenomena are without inherent existence. Therefore, since the intermediate wheel is the path taught to those who have already tamed their minds, it contradicts the fact that they have not entered the Great Vehicle before, and that the intermediate wheel has tamed their continuums. Therefore, the meaning of truly entering all vehicles is that the continuum has been tamed by entering all vehicles. Because it is taught to Bodhisattvas with sharp faculties and extremely ripe disciples, this is the definitive meaning. On the other hand, according to the view of the self-empty school, the first and final wheels should be very similar, but this is not the case here. The intermediate wheel is more similar to the first, and the final wheel is extremely contradictory to the Lesser Vehicle, so this is the ultimate. This fact is obvious, because in the first two wheels, the appearance of mind was not taught, nor were the eight consciousnesses, and the establishment of the five dharmas and three natures was never taught in the first wheel, and even in the intermediate wheel, it was not explained in detail. This kind of wisdom that empties the grasper and the grasped was not taught in either of those two wheels, and the Hearers believe that there is no such wisdom at all. The self-empty school also admits that it is the same as the two Hearer schools here, except for whether or not they believe that all phenomena are without inherent existence, there is not much difference in tenets. If, as in the view that realizing that all phenomena are without inherent existence exists in all Great and Lesser Vehicles, except for the difference between the two Hearer schools and the view of realizing no self-nature, the paths to be cultivated by the three vehicles are almost the same. Therefore, in general,
Chinese
除了行持的差别之外，从见解的角度来说，声闻和 大乘也实际上承认修持是一样的。第三法轮和第一法轮差别很大，因为宣说了显现为心，详细地阐述了八识、五法和三自性等，并且说声闻们认为存在的外部事物在这里完全不存在，声闻们完全不承认的二无之智慧被说成是真实成立的。因此，声闻乘、自证辟支佛乘和大乘二者在见解上的差别非常大。因此，按照自空派的观点，声闻的经典大多是了义，除了《般若经》之外，浩如烟海的大乘经典全部都是不了义，这样一来，大乘和小乘的了义和不了义就颠倒了。他空不仅是最后的教言，而且也是中间的密意，在《般若经》的《慈氏请问品》中，既然已经承认了三种自性，如果认为一切法在无实性方面没有差别，那么建立三种自性就变得没有必要了。在《经庄严论》中也说：“如是所说非真实，调御尊意甚深邃。”这似乎也说明了，《般若经》的经文仅仅是直接显示，不能被认为是最终的了义。因此，在色法到一切智之间的诸法之上，所安立的遍计所执和依他起二者被说成是无实性，而对圆成实则暂时保持中立。对于中观和唯识二者来说，并不认为经典是不同的，因为只是对同一部经典在理解方式上有所不同而已，所以这方面没有不合理的。就像毗奈耶和经部二者，虽然经典没有不同，但只是在领会密意的方式上有所不同一样。一般来说，自从持有唯识真实现象的宗派增多之后，就不用考虑论典是否存在，即使有书本也不需要翻译成藏文。如果需要的话，除了十八部声闻部派中的赤衣部派之外，其他部派的三藏和经部的论典也会变得不存在，因为它们不在藏地。因此，难道不应该翻译吗？因此，《释量论》总的来说不是经部的论典。
English
Apart from the difference in practice, from the perspective of view, the Shravakas and Mahayana also actually acknowledge that the practice is the same. The last turning of the wheel is very different from the first turning of the wheel, because it teaches that appearances are mind, elaborately explains the eight consciousnesses, five dharmas, and three natures, and states that the external objects that the Shravakas believe to exist are completely non-existent here. The non-dual wisdom that the Shravakas completely do not accept is said to be truly established. Therefore, the difference in view between the Shravaka Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and the Mahayana is very great. Therefore, according to the view of the Rangtongpas, the Sutras of the Shravakas are mostly of definitive meaning, and apart from the Prajnaparamita Sutra, the vast Mahayana Sutras are all of provisional meaning. In this way, the definitive and provisional meanings of the Great and Small Vehicles are reversed. This Shentong is not only the final teaching, but also the intention of the intermediate, as stated in the chapter of Maitreya's Questions in the Prajnaparamita Sutra. Since the three characteristics have been acknowledged, if it is believed that all dharmas are not different in terms of non-reality, then establishing the three characteristics becomes unnecessary. It is also said in the Ornament of the Sutras: "What is said is not true, the intention of the Bhagavan is very profound." This also seems to indicate that the words of the Prajnaparamita Sutra are merely direct teachings and should not be taken as the ultimate definitive meaning. Therefore, the imputed and dependent natures on top of the dharmas from form to omniscience are said to be unreal, while the perfected nature is temporarily left neutral. For Madhyamaka and Chittamatra, it is not believed that the Sutras are different, because it is only a difference in the way of interpreting the same Sutra, so there is nothing unreasonable about this. Just like the Vinaya and Sutra Pitaka, although the Sutras are not different, it is only a difference in the way of understanding the intention. In general, since many adherents of the Chittamatra's doctrine of true appearances have emerged, there is no need to worry about whether the treatises exist or not, and even if there are books, there is no need to translate them into Tibetan. If it is necessary, then apart from the Red-robed Sect among the eighteen Shravaka schools, the Tripitaka and Sutra treatises of the other schools would also become non-existent, because they are not in Tibet. Therefore, should it not be translated? Therefore, in general, the Pramanavarttika is not a Sutra treatise.
Chinese
。即使允许这样，也只有一些宗教术语，而没有完整的宗派。如果仅仅产生了经部宗的观点，就认为它存在，那么在所有瑜伽行派的论著中都产生了唯识的观点，为什么不认为有唯识宗的论著呢？此外，也没有经典依据说第二法轮是了义，第三法轮是不了义。在释论中说第二法轮是不了义，第三法轮是了义，因此区分了了义和不了义，并且将不了义解释为有密意，如果将这部经也解释为有密意，那就太过分了。自己一方没有区分了义、不了义、有密意的经典依据，却说其他宗派的经典依据是有密意的，这仅仅是仗势欺人的行为。龙树在《理聚论》中说了自空，但在《赞聚论》中说了他空，因此对两方面都随顺。其他如善逝、月称等，虽然总体上是伟大的班智达，但他们没有包括在六庄严之中，也没有获得佛陀亲自授记将持有佛法。无著昆仲不是与陈那、法称争论的对象。特别是，弥勒菩萨亲自授记无著将区分经典了义和不了义。世亲精通九十九万部论典，并且世亲、陈那、法护等人，也被月称和智慧藏等人认为是比自己更博学、听闻更广、是伟大的车乘。因此，依靠月称等人的言论来否定无著昆仲是不公正的。此外，在宗派之上，这两派的辩论非常多，但因为文字太多，而且暂时看起来不方便阅读，所以没有写。其中，自空的含义是，因为世俗和胜义的一切法都空无自性，没有真实性，所以认为一切法都是自空的。他空的含义是，虽然世俗的一切法都无自性，是空性的，是自空，但胜义的法界是真实存在的，因此不是自
English
. Even if this is allowed, there are only some religious terms, and there is no complete sect. If only the view of the Sutra School arises and it is considered to exist, then in all the treatises of the Yoga School, the view of Vijnanavada has arisen, why not consider that there are treatises of the Vijnanavada School? Furthermore, there is no scriptural basis for saying that the second turning of the wheel is definitive and the third turning is provisional. In the commentary, it is said that the second turning is provisional and the third turning is definitive, thus distinguishing between definitive and provisional, and explaining the provisional as having hidden meaning. If this sutra is also explained as having hidden meaning, it would be too extreme. One's own side does not have scriptural basis for distinguishing between definitive, provisional, and having hidden meaning, but saying that the scriptural basis of other schools is having hidden meaning is merely an act of bullying. Nagarjuna spoke of self-emptiness in the Collection of Reasoning, but spoke of other-emptiness in the Collection of Praises, thus following both sides. Others such as Shantarakshita, Chandrakirti, etc., although generally great panditas, they are not included among the Six Ornaments, nor have they received the Buddha's own prophecy to uphold the Dharma. The Asanga brothers are not the object of debate with Dignaga and Dharmakirti. In particular, Maitreya Buddha himself prophesied that Asanga would distinguish between the definitive and provisional meanings of the scriptures. Vasubandhu was proficient in 990,000 treatises, and Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and Dharmapala were also considered by Chandrakirti and Jnanagarbha to be more learned, more widely heard, and great chariots than themselves. Therefore, relying on the words of Chandrakirti and others to deny the Asanga brothers is unjust. Furthermore, on top of the sectarian views, there are very many debates between these two schools, but because there are too many words, and it seems inconvenient to read for the time being, I have not written them. Among them, the meaning of self-emptiness is that because all phenomena of conventional and ultimate truth are empty of their own nature and have no reality, it is considered that all phenomena are self-empty. The meaning of other-emptiness is that although all phenomena of conventional truth are without self-nature, are empty, and are self-empty, the realm of ultimate truth is truly existent, therefore it is not
Chinese
空。然而空性是存在的，因为远离了能取所取等一切戏论，所以胜义是自性空。这是他们所持的观点，因此在世俗上与自空相同，但在胜义上是否承认自空则存在差异。世俗和胜义的安立方式也不同。自空者认为，包含轮涅的一切法，如此显现的是世俗，而这些法无自性，这被安立为胜义谛。胜义也仅仅被安立为远离一切戏论。他空者认为，包含实有实无、能取所取等二取的一切法都是世俗，而胜义的界，二空的智慧自证是胜义。因此，胜义不只是远离戏论，而是安立为远离能取所取的戏论的觉性。仅仅远离戏论，如同虚空一般，被认为是顽空和断空。因此，自空者的胜义安立为无遮和非实有。他空者的胜义是实有，不是由因缘新造的，前后一切不变，是常恒不变的，因此不会堕入断边。因为远离一切戏论，所以不会堕入常边，超越了言语所能表达的范围。因为分别念无法确定“就是这样”，所以超越了分别的境界，并且是各自自证智慧的体验对象。因此，对于三种自性来说，依他是具有错乱显现的识，遍计是显现在依他上的错乱，圆成是识远离能取所取的错乱，并且不空于自证的体性。因此，遍计只是以名言和假立安立，根本不存在，依他在世俗上存在，在胜义上不存在，圆成在胜义上存在。遍计是相无自性，依他是生无自性，圆成是能取所取的体性不存在，因此是胜义无自性。因此，按照自空的观点，由于法和法的自性不存在，所以认为一切法都是空性。