English
In short, regarding the views of the Prasangika and Svatantrika schools, both consider them to be in accordance with the intention of the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma and the Ratnagotravibhāga (Treatise on the Buddha-nature), and the literal meaning of the intermediate turning is also like that. They believe that the literal meanings of the Ratnagotravibhāga and the final turning of the wheel of Dharma are not consistent. However, the omniscient Jonangpa master believes that although the views of the Prasangika and Svatantrika schools claim to be in accordance with the intention of the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma and the Ratnagotravibhāga, their intention is not flawless. Although the literal meaning of the Ratnagotravibhāga seems to be mostly in accordance, there are also many places where it is not. Many sutras of the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma clearly explain other-emptiness (gzhan stong), so the literal meaning of the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma and the Ratnagotravibhāga is not entirely consistent. Among them, the literal meaning of most of the words and phrases of the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma and the Ratnagotravibhāga does not contradict both the Prasangika, Svatantrika, and other-emptiness schools. However, those who cite them as the source of the so-called self-emptiness (rang stong) unique tenet have misunderstood themselves. Because those words and phrases do not explain that tenet, and are contrary to that tenet, there are also many unique words and phrases that specifically explain other-emptiness. Therefore, the intermediate turning of the wheel of Dharma and the Ratnagotravibhāga also explain the other-emptiness Madhyamaka. However, from these scriptures, only in the final turning of the wheel of Dharma and its commentaries, the unique aspects of other-emptiness are clearly and extensively explained. Although the unique tenets of the Prasangika and Svatantrika schools, which are now known as the view of self-emptiness, are not explained, the self-emptiness in the intention of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is extensively explained. This is the first difference. In addition, the former believes that the Abhisamayalankara (Ornament of Clear Realization) explains both the tenets of self-emptiness and other-emptiness, because when cutting off elaboration with view, the self-emptiness of the Prasangika, Svatantrika, and Lokayata (materialist) schools is needed, and when practicing with meditation, other-emptiness is needed. The remaining four Maitreya's Dharmas only explain other-emptiness. There are also two views on this: the Uttaratantra (Ratnagotravibhāga) explains the ultimate one vehicle; and in the other three treatises that prohibit cutting off the lineage, the ultimate three vehicles and cutting off the lineage are explained. The latter believes that the five Maitreya's Dharmas do not have their own independent tenets. The so-called tenet of self-emptiness is not explained even in the Abhisamayalankara. From the Sutra-alankara and other treatises, there is absolutely no explanation of cutting off the lineage and the ultimate three vehicles. This is the second difference. In addition, the former believes that when cutting off elaboration with view, self-emptiness is more profound; when practicing with meditation,
Chinese
有人说，他空见更深奥。他们认为，自空见也包含在应成派、自续派和经量部三种观点中。后者认为，诸佛菩萨所持的自空见是断除戏论的殊胜之见，但它也包含在他空见中，因此并非独立的见解。现在流行的自空见，即应成派、自续派和经量部三种观点，认为胜义谛是无自性的，这是错误的。因为这种见解不能很好地断除戏论，反而会变成诽谤。这是第三种观点。还有人说，他空见超越了唯识宗，因此是更彻底的中观见。然而，从见解的角度来看，自空见更高。但前者（他空见）不会变成错误，因为它与修行的要点相符。这是第四种观点。还有人说，自空见也超越了唯识宗，虽然它只是将四宗的观点归纳为中观，但并非纯粹的究竟见。最高的见解唯有他空见。这是第五种观点。还有人以前者的理由说，慈氏五论及其追随者不分析二取空的智慧。总的来说，如果用理智分析，它也是无法分析的。因为用分析胜义谛的理智无法分析，所以自空见更深奥。即使无法分析，这种智慧的体验也不会中断，因此修行的要点就像他空见一样存在。后者认为，二取空的智慧可以用理智分析，因此分析它是自己的错误。这是第六种观点。还有人说，二取空的智慧是刹那的觉性，不是常恒的，没有存在的机会。后者认为，它不是刹那的，而是超越了三时，因此是常恒不变的。这是第七种观点。同样，有人认为它是知识，因此是实有；也有人认为它超越了实有和非实有。这是第八种观点。同样，有人认为它是有为法，也有人认为它是无为法。这是第九种观点。还有人认为，与藏地普遍观点一致的是，一切知识的自相只是明觉，这是依他起的实有。仅仅显现于此的二取显现的自相是遍计所执。明觉与二取显现两者都存在的方面是依他起，明觉中原本没有二取法染污的方面是圆成实，因此依他起
English
Some say that the other-empty view is deeper. They consider that the self-empty view is also included in the three views of Prasangika, Svatantrika, and Sautrantika. The latter believe that the self-empty view held by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is the supreme view for cutting off elaboration, but it is also included in the other-empty view, so it is not a separate view. The self-empty view that is popular nowadays, namely the three views of Prasangika, Svatantrika, and Sautrantika, considers the ultimate truth to be without self-nature, which is wrong. Because this view cannot cut off elaboration well, it will instead become slander. This is the third view. Others say that the other-empty view transcends the Mind-Only school, so it is a more thorough Madhyamaka view. However, from the perspective of view, the self-empty view is higher. But the former (other-empty view) will not become wrong, because it is in accordance with the key points of practice. This is the fourth view. Others say that the self-empty view also transcends the Mind-Only school, although it only summarizes the views of the four schools into Madhyamaka, it is not a pure ultimate view. The highest view is only the other-empty view. This is the fifth view. Others say, with the former reason, that the followers of the Five Treatises of Maitreya do not analyze the wisdom of non-duality. In general, if analyzed with reason, it is also impossible to analyze. Because it is impossible to analyze with the reason that analyzes the ultimate truth, the self-empty view is deeper. Even if it cannot be analyzed, the experience of this wisdom will not be interrupted, so the key points of practice exist like the other-empty view. The latter believe that the wisdom of non-duality can be analyzed with reason, so analyzing it is their own mistake. This is the sixth view. Others say that the wisdom of non-duality is a momentary awareness, not permanent, and there is no opportunity for existence. The latter believe that it is not momentary, but transcends the three times, so it is permanent and unchanging. This is the seventh view. Similarly, some believe that it is knowledge, therefore it is real; others believe that it transcends both real and unreal. This is the eighth view. Similarly, some believe that it is conditioned, and others believe that it is unconditioned. This is the ninth view. Others believe that, in accordance with the common view of Tibet, the self-aspect of all knowledge is only clarity and awareness, which is the real entity of other-dependence. The self-aspect of the appearance of duality that appears only in this is the completely imputed. The aspect where both clarity and awareness and the appearance of duality exist is other-dependence, and the aspect where clarity and awareness are originally not stained by the Dharma of duality is perfect accomplishment, therefore other-dependence
Chinese
从圆成实性的角度来说，反体各异，从体性的角度来说也各异，但遍计所执的法和圆成实性本体相同。后者认为，由各种分别念所分析的分析部分，以及显现为外境的显现部分，即所取的自相是遍计所执，心和心所的自相是世俗的识或由识所摄的识是他空，远离戏论的自性光明是圆成实性，因此遍计所执虽然与他空在实体上没有差别，但在体性方面却非常不同。圆成实性和他空，不仅反体和体性不同，本体也不相同。前者安立与唯识宗更为一致，认为中观的宗义就是这样。第九。因此，前者认为遍计所执被无实有遍及，圆成实性被实有遍及，他空具有两部分。后者认为，遍计所执和他空两者都被完全的无实有遍及。第十。同样，前者说一切自证从自证的反体来说都是胜义谛，后者认为，世俗名言的自证都是世俗，因此自证也有世俗和胜义谛两种。第十一。前者认为圆成实性是空性，遍计所执只是空，但不是空性，空性被胜义谛遍及。后者认为一切法和法性都必须只说是空性，空性不被胜义谛遍及，不重视名称的类别遍及，主要用于意义。第十二。同样，前者在量论和俱舍论等方面，大多与共同语一致，认为基成立被事物和非事物中的任何一个遍及，识被事物遍及，胜义谛不是事物，无为法是非事物，如虚空等。如来藏具有业和烦恼的无为法，以及仅仅是明空的新无为法等，因为具有一部分无为法，所以是从名言的角度安立为无为法，但不是与行和体性相违的无为法，因此说无为法是假立的。后者认为，量论和俱舍论等
English
From the perspective of the perfectly established nature, the opposites are different, and from the perspective of characteristics, they are also different, but the object of other-dependence itself and the perfectly established nature are considered to be of the same essence. The latter considers the analyzed part analyzed by various conceptual thoughts, and the appearing part that appears as the external object, that is, the self-aspect of what is grasped is the completely imputed, and the self-aspect of mind and mental factors is the other-dependent consciousness or the consciousness included in consciousness, and the self-nature of luminosity free from elaboration is the perfectly established nature. Therefore, although the completely imputed is not different in substance from the other-dependent, it is very different in terms of characteristics. The perfectly established nature and the other-dependent are not only different in opposites and characteristics, but also not the same in essence. The former establishment is more consistent with the Mind-Only school, and it is considered that this is the only tenet of the Middle Way school. Ninth. Therefore, the former considers that the completely imputed is pervaded by non-reality, the perfectly established nature is pervaded by reality, and the other-dependent has two parts. The latter considers that both the completely imputed and the other-dependent are completely pervaded by non-reality. Tenth. Similarly, the former says that all self-awareness is the ultimate truth from the opposite of self-awareness, and the latter considers that the self-awareness of conventional terms is all conventional, so self-awareness also has two types: conventional and ultimate truth. Eleventh. The former considers that the perfectly established nature is emptiness, the completely imputed is only empty, but not emptiness, and emptiness is pervaded by the ultimate truth. The latter considers that all dharmas and dharma-nature must only be said to be emptiness, emptiness is not pervaded by the ultimate truth, and does not value the pervasion of name categories, and is mainly used for meaning. Twelfth. Similarly, the former, in the Pramana theory and the Abhidharma, etc., is mostly consistent with common language, and considers that the established basis is pervaded by any of things and non-things, consciousness is pervaded by things, the ultimate truth is not a thing, and the unconditioned is a non-thing, such as space, etc. The Tathagatagarbha has the unconditioned of karma and afflictions, and the new unconditioned of merely clear light, etc., because it has a part of the unconditioned, it is established as the unconditioned from the perspective of terms, but it is not the unconditioned that contradicts action and nature, so it is said that the unconditioned is imputed. The latter considers that the Pramana theory and the Abhidharma, etc.