Chinese
如果没有他者，又怎么会从他者而有呢？因此，近取是，也不是从他者的事物而有。所说的显现而见，也是由于自己的心完全被愚痴的过失所蒙蔽，如同见到幻术和梦境一样见到，但这其中没有丝毫的真实，为了舍弃认为这是真实的而显现的执着。世尊曾开示露珠、水泡、阳焰、芭蕉树的树干和幻术的比喻，也说过幻术是用来欺骗孩童的。因为那些事物并不存在。因此，近取和近取者，以一切方式都是空性的。以空性，如来是空性的，怎么能安立呢？因此，因为近取不是从自性而有，也不是从他者的事物而有，所以近取是空性的。因为近取者以一切方式进行观察，也不是从自性而有，也不是从他者的事物而有，所以近取者也是空性的。因此，你以露珠、水泡、阳焰、芭蕉树的树干和幻术一样没有实义且自性空性的近取，如同幻术的士夫、梦境、影像和乾闼婆城一样没有实义且自性空性的如来存在，这样怎么安立呢？更说什么呢？因此，暂时对于自己的宗派产生贪执，究竟是依靠什么而安立为存在呢？以及舍弃了依靠什么而存在和不存在，而成立中观，这个存在则这个产生，这个不存在则这个不产生，这样安立的这二者，对于依靠什么而安立的意义不了解，好好想想吧！因此，依靠而安立的意义，就是任何事物依靠而安立，那个事物以一切方式自性空性，所以不是能说存在和不存在的那个本身，但在名言的词句上是没有过失的。说道：如果那样，那些一切都是空性啊，也说
English
If there is no other, how can it arise from the other? Therefore, appropriation is not even from the object of the other. What is said as 'manifestly perceived' is also seen as one sees illusions and dreams due to the fault of one's own mind being completely obscured by ignorance, but there is not even a little truth in this, in order to abandon the manifest attachment that thinks this is true. The Bhagavan taught examples of dew drops, water bubbles, mirages, banana tree trunks, and illusions, and also said that illusions are used to deceive children. Because those things do not exist. Therefore, the appropriator and the appropriated are empty in every way. By emptiness, the Tathagata is empty, how can it be established? Therefore, because appropriation is not from its own nature, nor from the object of the other, appropriation is empty. Because the appropriator, when thoroughly examined in every way, is not from its own nature, nor from the object of the other, the appropriator is also empty. Therefore, you, with appropriation that is like dew drops, water bubbles, mirages, banana tree trunks, and illusions, without essence and empty of its own nature, how can you establish that the Tathagata, like illusory men, dreams, images, and cities of gandharvas, without essence and empty of its own nature, exists? What more is there to say? Therefore, for the time being, clinging to one's own side, upon what does one rely to establish existence? And abandoning what is relied upon for existence and non-existence, and establishing the Middle Way, 'this exists, therefore this arises, this does not exist, therefore this does not arise,' consider well that you do not understand the meaning of what is to be established by relying on these two. Therefore, the meaning of what is to be established by relying is that whatever object is to be established by relying, that object is empty of its own nature in every way, so it is not that which can be said to exist or not exist, but there is no fault in the words of conventional terms. It is said: If that is the case, all those are empty, it is also said
Chinese
如果不应该说，那么你无所顾忌地秘密赞叹，说这些全部是空吗？回答：如果说不应该说“空”，那么这是说了非常少的一部分，即不应该说“空”，也不应该说“非空”，不应该说二和非二，应该为了施设的意义而说。不应该说“空”，也不应该说“非空”，空和非空，以及非空非非空也不应该说。为了舍弃非真实的遍计所执，并且为了施设胜义谛的真实，应该说这些，下面也会说：不依赖名言，不能显示胜义谛；不依赖胜义谛，不能获得涅槃。圣天论师也说：如果事物有自性，见空有什么功德？因为见到被分别念束缚，所以此处应该遮破它。说：如果如来从自性上也不存在，从其他的法上也不存在。为什么不应该说常和无常等，边和无边等呢？说如来就是不存在。像这样清楚地说才是合理的吧？回答：对于依赖如来而施设的法，怎么能说“有”或者“无”呢？例如，如果如来存在，那么无取也必定存在，但无取是不存在的。既然无取是不存在的，那么怎么能说“有”呢？对于依赖如来而施设的法，又怎么能说“无”呢？例如，乌昙跋罗花不存在，所以无法施设。因此，因为如来从自性上也不存在，从其他的法上也不存在，所以说：常与无常等四者，寂灭中何处有？边与无边等四者，寂灭中何处有？
English
If it should not be said, then do you fearlessly secretly praise, saying that all these are empty? Answer: If it is said that one should not say "empty," then this is saying a very small part, that is, one should not say "empty," nor should one say "non-empty," one should not say two and non-two, one should speak for the sake of imputation. One should not say "empty," nor should one say "non-empty," empty and non-empty, and neither empty nor non-empty should be said. In order to abandon the non-veridical completely imagined, and for the sake of imputing the ultimate truth, one should say these, and it will also be said below: Without relying on conventional terms, one cannot show the ultimate truth; without relying on the ultimate truth, one cannot attain nirvana. Master Aryadeva also said: If things have inherent existence, what is the merit of seeing emptiness? Because seeing that which is bound by conceptual thought, therefore one should refute it here. Said: If the Tathagata does not exist from its own nature, nor does it exist from other things. Why should one not say permanent and impermanent, etc., and finite and infinite, etc.? Saying that the Tathagata is simply non-existent. Is it reasonable to say it clearly like this? Answer: For that which is imputed in dependence on the Tathagata, how can one say "exists" or "does not exist"? For example, if the Tathagata exists, then non-appropriation must also exist, but non-appropriation does not exist. Since non-appropriation does not exist, then how can one say "exists"? For that which is imputed in dependence on the Tathagata, how can one say "does not exist"? For example, the flower of the udumbara does not exist, so it cannot be imputed. Therefore, because the Tathagata does not exist from its own nature, nor does it exist from other things, it is said: Where are the four, such as permanence and impermanence, in quiescence? Where are the four, such as end and endlessness, in quiescence?