Chinese
仅仅是显示了那个自性本身。对于菩萨来说，特别是因为所有的分别念都是烦恼，如果那是虚假的，那么就完全显示了所有的分别念都仅仅是虚假的。如果胜义谛的事物没有任何自性，那么，那时，“蕴没有我，我也没有蕴，它们不像被考察的那样，它们也不是不存在”，这样说是什么意思呢？如果从这里显示了被否定的蕴等等是存在的，那么，这本身是不可靠的。就像这里，“它们不像被考察的那样”，这否定了它们在胜义谛中存在，而“它们也不是不存在”，这显示了这些在名言上如所显现的那样存在，因此外道所考察的自性即使在世俗中也是不存在的，而蕴在名言上是存在的，并不是胜义谛，这仅仅是清楚地显示了。如果不是那样，那么，那时，先说不存在，又显示存在，怎么会是相关的呢？在《圣梵天请问经》中，与显示蕴无自性是胜义谛的说法也是相违背的，那是怎么说的呢？“谁知蕴不生，无生圆满者，于世间亦行，亦不住于此世。”就像这样。在《圣宝云经》中也仅仅清楚地显示了，蕴在胜义谛中是不存在的，但在世俗中是存在的。种姓之子，具有十种法的菩萨是善于世俗谛的。哪十种呢？就像这样，也认为是色，但在胜义谛中不缘色，也不执着，受、想、行、识也与此相同，这是广说的内容。在《圣宝源经》中，太阳赐予就像这样，例如虚空中没有出现图画，也不会出现。
English
It is merely showing that very nature itself. For Bodhisattvas, especially since all conceptualizations are afflictions, if that is false, then it is completely shown that all conceptualizations are merely false. If there is no self-nature of things in the ultimate truth, then, at that time, "The aggregates have no self, and I do not have aggregates, they are not as examined, nor are they non-existent," what does this mean? If from here it is shown that the negated aggregates etc. exist, then this itself is unreliable. Just like here, "They are not as examined," this negates their existence in the ultimate truth, and "They are also not non-existent," this shows that these exist as they appear in name, therefore the self-nature examined by the heretics does not exist even in the conventional, while the aggregates exist in name, not in the ultimate truth, this is merely clearly shown. If it is not so, then, at that time, how can it be related to first say that it does not exist and then show that it exists? In the "Holy Brahma's Inquiry Sutra," it is also contradictory to the statement that showing the aggregates to be without self-nature is the ultimate truth, how is that said? "Whoever knows that the aggregates are unborn, and that there is no arising, also acts in the world, and does not abide in this world." Just like this. In the "Holy Jewel Cloud Sutra," it is also clearly shown that the aggregates do not exist in the ultimate truth, but exist in the conventional. Son of the lineage, a Bodhisattva who possesses ten dharmas is skilled in the conventional truth. What are the ten? Just like this, it is also considered form, but in the ultimate truth, it does not focus on form, nor does it cling to it, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are also the same as this, this is the content of the extensive explanation. In the "Holy Jewel Source Sutra," the sun gives like this, for example, a picture has not appeared in the sky, nor will it appear.
Chinese
又，不生不灭，无去无来，不生，无死殁，不显现，不可说，所以只是名言，只是世俗。如日施所说，从色到识之间没有产生，不会产生，乃至如是只是世俗，应将广说与意义结合。如果这样，从胜义谛大空性中，业也存在，异熟也存在，作者不可得，这样所说与此相违，这样如果胜义中业等存在，那么那时一切事物就不是无自性了。如果世俗中存在，那么那时作者也世俗中存在，作者不可得就不可说了。这里也如先前一样没有相违，这样业和果只是世俗中存在，外道所遍计的作者，世俗中也不存在，因为已经显示，哪里会有相违的机会？如果其他经中说：如儿童所分别，一切事物皆存在，如果如所见般成为那样，一切都将见为那样。诸法一切皆无，因此，没有一切烦恼清净，那些不如所见，那些也不是不存在。这样所说应如何理解？这也是先前已经说过的，这样这里如果一切事物如所显现般，仅仅在胜义中存在，那么那时一切都将见为仅仅是那样，这样以此在胜义中一切事物无生而安立宗义。诸法一切皆无，这样说也是说事物在世俗中存在，因为出现那些不如所见。依靠名言的谛实，安立一切烦恼和清净，这是从般若波罗蜜多中所说，如善现获得，现证，生和灭，一切烦恼
English
Furthermore, it is unborn and unceasing, without going and coming, unborn, without death or transference, unmanifest, and inexpressible, so it is merely a designation and merely conventional. As said by Nyima Shyin, from form to consciousness, there has been no arising, and there will be no arising; thus, the extensive explanation up to 'it is merely conventional' should be applied to the meaning. If that is the case, from the great emptiness of ultimate truth, there is also action, and there is also ripening; but the agent is not observed. What is said in this way would contradict this, because if action and so forth exist ultimately, then at that time, all things would not be without inherent existence. But if it is conventionally, then at that time, the agent also exists conventionally, so it is not permissible to say that the agent is not observed. Here too, there is no contradiction as before, because action and result exist only conventionally, but the agent imputed by the non-Buddhists does not exist even conventionally. Since this has been shown, how could there be an opportunity for contradiction? If in other sutras it is said: 'As children discriminate, all things exist. If it becomes as seen, all will be seen as such. Because all dharmas are non-existent, there is no complete purification of defilements. Those are not as seen, and those are not non-existent either.' How should what is said in this way be interpreted? This too has already been explained previously. Thus, here too, if all things existed ultimately, just as they appear, then at that time, all would be seen as just that. Thus, by this, the tenet is established that all things are unborn in ultimate truth. 'Because all dharmas are non-existent' also states that things exist conventionally, because it occurs that 'those are not as seen.' Relying on the truth of designation, the establishment of all defilements and complete purification is taught in the Perfection of Wisdom, as it is said: 'As Subhuti obtains, realizes, birth and cessation, all defilements.'
Tibetan
ངས་པ་དང༌། རྣམ་པར་བྱང་བ་ནི་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་ཡིན་གྱི། དོན་དམ་པར་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །འོ་ན་དེ་ཉིད་ལས། དོན་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན་སེམས་ཉིད་དེ། །ཕྱི་རོལ་དོན་མཐོང་ལོག་པ་ཡིན། །རིགས་པས་རྣམ་པར་ལྟ་རྣམས་ཀྱི། །གཟུང་དང་འཛིན་པ་འགག་པར་འགྱུར། །ཇི་ལྟར་བྱིས་པས་རྣམ་བརྟགས་ལྟར། །ཕྱི་རོལ་དོན་ནི་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །བག་ཆགས་ཀྱིས་ནི་བསྒྲིབས་པའི་སེམས། །དོན་དུ་སྣང་བ་རབ་ཏུ་འབྱུང༌། །ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་དང༌། གཞན་ལས་ཀྱང༌། ཀྱེ་རྒྱལ་བའི་སྲས་དག །ཁམས་གསུམ་པ་འདི་ནི་སེམས་ཙམ་མོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་འདི་ཡང་ཇི་ལྟར་དྲང༌། དེ་བཞིན་དུ་འཕགས་པ་དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲེལ་པ་དང༌། འཕགས་པ་སྟུག་པོ་བཀོད་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ལས། ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་སེམས་ཙམ་གྱི་ལུས་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་སེམས་ཁོ་ན་དོན་དམ་པར་ཡོད་ཀྱི། གཞན་ནི་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བསྒྲུབས་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་ཆོས་ཐམས་ཅད་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་མེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་འགྲུབ་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེ་ན། དེ་ཡང་ཁུངས་སུ་མི་རུང་བ་ཉིད་དེ། ཇི་ལྟར་སེམས་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ་གཟུགས་ཀྱང་མདོ་དེ་དང་དེ་ལས་རྣམ་པ་དུ་མར་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པ་ཁོ་ན་སྟེ། དེའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་ཡང་ཅི་སྟེ་དོན་དམ་པར་ཡོད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་མི་ བཟུང། འོན་ཏེ་དོན་ཚད་མས་གནོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང༌། མདོ་གཞན་དག་ལས་ཀྱང་བཀག་པའི་ཕྱིར་དོན་དམ་པར་ཡོད་པར་རྣམ་པར་མི་གཞག་སྟེ། གང་ཟག་ལ་བདག་མེད་པ་ཙམ་ལ་གཞུག་པ་ལ་ལྡེམ་པོར་དགོངས་པས་གདུལ་བར་བྱ་བ་དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་བསམ་པ་ལ་ལྟོས་ཏེ། དེ་བསྟན་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཏུ་ཟད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བར་བརྗོད་ན་གལ་ཏེ་དེ་ལྟ་ན་ནི་སེམས་ཀྱང་འོག་ནས་འབྱུང་བའི་ཚད་མས་གནོད་པའི་ཕྱིར་དང༌། དེ་མདོ་གཞན་ལས་ཀྱང༌། ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་མེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་དོན་དམ་པ་ཉིད་དུ་མ་འཛིན་པར་སེམས་ཙམ་པོ་ཉིད་དེ་ནི་རིམ་གྱིས་དོན་དམ་པའི་ཚུལ་གྱི་རྒྱ་མཚོ་ལ་གཟུང་བའི་ཕྱིར་བསྟན་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་ཏུ་ཟད་དོ་སྙམ་དུ་ཟུང་ཤིག །འདི་ལྟར་གང་ཞིག་ཅིག་ཅར་ཆོས་མ་ལུས་པ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་མེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་རྟོགས་པར་མི་ནུས་པ་དེ་རེ་ཞིག་སེམས་ཙམ་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས། རིམ་གྱིས་ཕྱིའི་དོན་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་མེད་པ་ཉིད་ལ་འཇུག་གོ ། དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱི་ཕྱིར། རིགས་པས་རྣམ་པར་ལྟ་རྣམས་ཀྱི། །གཟུང་དང་འཛིན་པ་འགག་པར་འགྱུར། །ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །དེའི་འོག་ཏུ་རིམ་གྱིས་སེམས་ཀྱི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ལ་སོ་སོར་རྟོག་ན། དེ་ཡང་བདག་མེད་པ་ཉིད་དུ་ཁོང་དུ་ཆུད་ནས་ཟབ་མོའི་ཚུལ་ལ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུ
Chinese
例如，说“染污和清净是名言谛，但在胜义谛中则不然”。那么，从那部经中说：“非有实事唯是心，于外见事乃颠倒，以理观察诸法者，能断所取与能取，如童蒙者所分别，外境实事皆非有，由习气障蔽之心，显现为境极明显。”以及其他经典中也说：“诸位菩萨之子！此三界唯是心。”这又该如何理解呢？同样，在《圣解深密经》和《圣密集经》等经典中，因为一切法都显示为唯心之体性，所以唯有心是胜义谛存在，其他则不然，这样来成立。因此，难道一切法不会成立为无自性吗？如果这样问，这也是不能成立的。正如显示心存在一样，色法也在那些经中以多种方式显示为存在。因此，为什么不认为它也是胜义谛存在呢？然而，因为胜义量所损害，并且也被其他经典所遮止，所以不将它安立为胜义谛存在。只是为了引导众生进入人无我的境界，所以才以委婉的方式，考虑到那些需要调伏的众生的意乐，而仅仅是这样显示而已。如果这样说，那么心也会因为下面将要出现的量所损害，并且也在其他经典中显示为无自性，所以不应执着为胜义谛存在，而仅仅是唯心宗，是为了逐渐引导他们进入胜义谛的法海而显示的。像这样，对于那些不能立即证悟一切法无自性的人，暂时依赖于唯心，逐渐进入外境无自性的境界。正因为如此，才说：“以理观察诸法者，能断所取与能取。”之后，逐渐对心的自性进行个别观察，从而也能领悟到它的无我性，并进入甚深之法。
English
For example, it is said, "Defilement and purification are conventional truths, but not in ultimate truth." So, from that very sutra, it says: "Not having reality, only mind; seeing external things is inverted. Those who contemplate all things with reason will cease the grasped and the grasper. Like children's discriminations, external things are not real. The mind obscured by habituation manifests as objects very clearly." And in other scriptures, it is said, "O sons of the Victorious Ones! These three realms are only mind." How should this be understood? Similarly, in the 'Arya Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra' and the 'Arya Ghanavyūha Sūtra' and others, because all dharmas are shown to be the nature of mind-only, only mind is ultimately existent, and others are not, thus it is established. Therefore, wouldn't all dharmas fail to be established as being without inherent existence? If you ask, that is also not a valid source. Just as the existence of mind is shown, so too is form shown in those same sutras in many ways to exist. Therefore, why is it not regarded as ultimately existent? However, because it is harmed by valid cognition of ultimate reality and is also prohibited by other sutras, it is not established as ultimately existent. It is only shown in a flexible way, relying on the intention of those to be tamed, to lead beings into the state of selflessness of the person. If it is said that it is only a teaching, then even mind will be harmed by the valid cognition that will arise later, and because it is also shown in other sutras to be without inherent existence, it should not be grasped as ultimately existent. The mind-only proponents are only shown this in order to gradually lead them into the ocean of the ultimate reality. In this way, for those who cannot realize all dharmas as being without inherent existence all at once, they rely on mind-only for a while, and gradually enter into the state of external objects being without inherent existence. For that very reason, it is said, "Those who contemplate all things with reason will cease the grasped and the grasper." After that, gradually examining the nature of the mind individually, they will also understand its selflessness and enter into the profound way.