Chinese
诸佛以法开示，完全依赖于二谛：世俗谛与胜义谛。如是说。其中，以世俗谛而言，说瓶子存在，碗存在，同样也说瓶子破了，碗烧了，说这些是无常的。当仅仅思索这些的时候，瓶子和碗依赖于安立，如果不合理，那么它们破裂和烧毁又怎么会合理呢？另外，如来也以世俗谛的力量，说如来老了，如来入灭了，也说这是无常的。当思索胜义谛的时候，如果如来本身不合理，那么衰老和入灭又怎么会合理呢？如是说。论师月称也说，是遮止真实的生，而不是仅仅遮止生。在《六十正理论释》中说：在任何情况下，只要是依赖于所缘而生的影像，是虚假的，我们就不会说它没有生。然而，在任何情况下，如果安立它不存在，我们才说它没有生。那么，在什么情况下安立为没有生呢？是在显现为真实的自性中，而不是在虚假的体性中，因为在那个体性中，已经承诺了是缘起。因此，不遮止虚幻如幻术般的生，而遮止真实的生，所以依赖于生和自性没有生二者并不相违。在《释》中说：因此，这样一来，生和无生二者，因为是不同的对境，怎么会互相违背呢？以及，当我们说凡是依赖于生的，就像影像一样，自性是没有生的。这个时候，哪里有反驳的机会呢？这是对争论依赖于生和自性没有生是相违的回答。《入中论》中也说：因此以这样的次第，事物从一开始，就是那样的没有生，世间了知为生。
English
The Buddhas teach the Dharma, relying entirely on the two truths: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Thus it is said. Among these, in terms of conventional truth, it is said that a pot exists, a bowl exists, and similarly it is also said that the pot is broken, the bowl is burned, saying that these are impermanent. When one contemplates only these, the pot and the bowl depend on being established, and if it is not reasonable, then how could their breaking and burning be reasonable? Furthermore, the Tathagata also, by the power of conventional truth, says that the Tathagata is old, the Tathagata has passed into nirvana, and also says that this is impermanent. When contemplating the ultimate truth, if the Tathagata himself is not reasonable, then how could aging and passing into nirvana be reasonable? Thus it is said. The teacher Chandrakirti also said that it is the cessation of true birth, not merely the cessation of birth. In the commentary on the "Sixty Stanzas on Reasoning," it says: In any case, as long as the image that arises in dependence on the object of perception is false, we do not say that it is unborn. However, in any case, if it is established that it does not exist, we say that it is unborn. So, in what case is it established as unborn? It is in the nature that appears to be true, not in the nature of falsehood, because in that nature, it has been promised that it is dependent arising. Therefore, not negating the birth of illusion-like magic, but negating true birth, so the two, dependent birth and no self-nature, are not contradictory. In the commentary it says: Therefore, in this way, how could the two, birth and non-birth, contradict each other, since they are different objects? And, when we say that whatever arises in dependence, like an image, is unborn by nature. At this time, where is the opportunity for refutation? This is the answer to the argument that dependent birth and no self-nature are contradictory. The "Entering the Middle Way" also says: Therefore, in such an order, things from the very beginning are thus unborn, and the world knows them as born.
Chinese
如果加上“自性”的差别，瓶等这些东西就不会存在于它本身中，正如世间广为人知的那样。同样，由于一切事物都在变化，因此不会出现与石女之子相同的情况。因此，内外一切事物都不存在于它本身中，而存在于名言中。因此，并非没有加上胜义的差别于所破。总之，如果完全不希望在所破上加上胜义的差别，那么就无法区分胜义谛中“这是这个”，世俗谛中“这是那个”的两种谛。因此，这样的中观派是谁也没有说过的，仅仅是邪分别而已。《明句论》中说，禁止在所破上加上胜义的差别，是为了遮止自生，而不是仅仅遮止生，这在那个论释中非常清楚。《入中论释》中也说，论师没有作差别，说“非从自生”，这是总的遮止生。如果事物在胜义中不是从自性生的，因为存在，就像有心识者一样。因此，应当认为，这样作差别，那个“胜义中”的差别是没有意义的。如是所说。因此，中观自续派和中观应成派二者，虽然不是从是否在所破上加上胜义的差别的角度来区分，但是存在是否在名言中遮止以自性成立的自性的差别。遮止内外诸法以自性成立的自性时，如果像应成派那样，就不需要新加上“胜义中”或者“真实中”或者“谛实中”的差别，因为如果存在以自性成立的自性，就必须成立为胜义等。如果像自续派那样，不加上那些“胜义中”等，就无法遮止，因此要加上“胜义中”或者“真实中”或者“谛实中”。然而，对于生灭和系缚解脱等，不加上任何“胜义中”或者“以自性成立”等的差别，就能够遮止，这是中观派二者都不允许的。那么，什么是胜义中不存在的含义呢？对此，“义”是应当了解的。“胜”是殊胜的意思，二者是同体。“胜”也可以是无分别智慧，它的“义”或者境就是胜义。
English
If the distinction of "own nature" is added, these things like pots will not exist in themselves, just as it is widely known in the world. Similarly, since all things are changing, it will not be the same as the son of a barren woman. Therefore, all internal and external things do not exist in themselves, but exist in name only. Therefore, it is not that the distinction of ultimate truth is not added to the object to be refuted. In short, if one does not want to add the distinction of ultimate truth to the object to be refuted at all, then there will be no way to distinguish the two truths of "this is this" in ultimate truth and "this is that" in conventional truth. Therefore, such a Madhyamika is not mentioned anywhere, and it is only a wrong conception. In the Clear Words, it is said that the prohibition of adding the distinction of ultimate truth to the object to be refuted is to prevent self-origination, not just to prevent origination, which is very clear in that commentary. In the Commentary on the Entrance, it is also said that the teacher did not make a distinction and said, "Not from self," which is a general negation of origination. If things do not originate from themselves in ultimate truth, because they exist, like sentient beings. Therefore, it should be thought that making such a distinction, the distinction of "in ultimate truth" is meaningless. As it is said. Therefore, although the Svatantrika Madhyamika and the Prasangika Madhyamika are not distinguished from the perspective of whether or not to add the distinction of ultimate truth to the object to be refuted, there is a difference in whether or not to negate the own nature established by its own essence in name only. When negating the own nature established by its own essence in internal and external phenomena, if it is like the Prasangika, there is no need to newly add the distinction of "in ultimate truth" or "in reality" or "in truth," because if there is an own nature established by its own essence, it must be established as ultimate truth, etc. If it is like the Svatantrika, if those "in ultimate truth" etc. are not added, it cannot be negated, so "in ultimate truth" or "in reality" or "in truth" is added. However, for arising and ceasing, bondage and liberation, etc., without adding any distinction of "in ultimate truth" or "established by its own essence" etc., it is possible to negate, which is not allowed by both Madhyamikas. So, what is the meaning of not existing in ultimate truth? To this, "meaning" is what should be understood. "Ultimate" means supreme, and the two are of the same essence. "Ultimate" can also be non-conceptual wisdom, and its "meaning" or object is ultimate truth.
Tibetan
ན་དོན་དམ་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་རྟོགས་པའི་མི་རྟོག་ཡེ་ཤེས་དེ་དང་རྗེས་སུ་མཐུན་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་དོན་དམ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་སྟེ། འདིར་ནི་ས་ལ་སོགས་པ་དག །དོན་དམ་པར་ནི་འབྱུང་བ་མིན། །ཞེས་པའི་འགྲེལ་པར། རྟོག་གེ་འབར་བ་ལས། དོན་དམ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་དོན་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་ཤེས་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་དོན་ཏེ། བརྟག་པར་བྱ་བ་དང་གོ་བར་བྱ་བ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་ཐ་ཚིག་གོ །དམ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི་མཆོག་ཅེས་བྱ་བའི་ཚིག་གི་སྒྲ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དོན་དམ་ཞེས་བསྡུ་བ་ནི་དེ་དོན་ཡང་ཡིན་ལ་དམ་པའང་ཡིན་པས་དོན་དམ་པའོ། །ཡང་ན་དམ་པའི་དོན་ཏེ་རྣམ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་དམ་པའི་དོན་ཡིན་པས་དམ་པའི་དོན་ནོ། །ཡང་ན་དོན་དམ་པ་དང་མཐུན་པ་སྟེ། དོན་དམ་པ་རྟོགས་པ་དང་རྗེས་སུ་མཐུན་པའི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་དོན་དམ་པ་དེ་ཡོད་པས་དོན་དམ་པ་དང་མཐུན་པའོ། །ཞེས་གསུངས་ལ། དོན་དམ་པ་དེར་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཞེས་པའམ་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་བརྗོད་པའི་དོན་དམ་པ་ནི་ཕྱི་མ་དེ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ཉིད་ལས། འོ་ན་དོན་དམ་པ་ནི་གང་དག་བློ་ཐམས་ཅད་ལས་འདས་པ་ཡིན་ལ། དངོས་པོའི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་དགག་པ་ནི་ཡི་གེའི་ཡུལ་ཡིན་ པས་དེའི་ཕྱིར་དགག་པ་མེད་པར་མི་འགྱུར་རམ་ཞེ་ན། དོན་དམ་པ་ནི་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་གཅིག་ནི་མངོན་པར་འདུ་བྱེད་པ་མེད་པར་འཇུག་པའི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ལས་འདས་པ་ཟག་པ་མེད་པ་སྤྲོས་པ་མེད་པའོ། །གཉིས་པ་ནི་མངོན་པར་འདུ་བྱེད་པ་དང་བཅས་པར་འཇུག་པ་བསོད་ནམས་དང་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱི་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་རྗེས་སུ་མཐུན་པ་དག་པ་འཇིག་རྟེན་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་སྤྲོས་པ་དང་བཅས་པ་སྟེ། འདིར་དེ་དམ་བཅའ་བའི་ཁྱད་པར་ཉིད་དུ་བཟུང་བས་ཉེས་པ་མེད་དོ། །ཞེས་གསུངས་པས། དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་ལ་ཚུལ་བཞིན་དུ་དཔྱོད་པའི་ཐོས་བསམ་གྱི་ཤེས་རབ་ཡན་ཆད་ལ་བཟུང་གི །འཕགས་པའི་རྗེས་ཐོབ་ཁོ་ན་ལ་མི་བྱའོ། །དབུ་མ་སྣང་བ་ལས་ཀྱང༌། གང་ཡང་དོན་དམ་པར་སྐྱེ་བ་མེད་ཅེས་བྱ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་སྨྲས་པ་དེ་ལའང་དོན་ནི་འདི་ཡིན་པར་འདོད་དེ། ཡང་དག་པའི་ཐོས་པ་དང་བསམས་པ་དང་བསྒོམས་པ་ལས་བྱུང་བའི་ཤེས་པ་ཐམས་ཅད་ནི་ཕྱིན་ཅི་མ་ལོག་པའི་ཡུལ་ཅན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། དོན་དམ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་སྟེ་འདིའི་དོན་དམ་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །མངོན་སུམ་དང་བརྒྱུད་པས་བྱས་པའི་ཁྱད་པར་ནི་ཡོད་དེ། དེ་དག་གི་དབང་གིས་དངོས་པོ་འདི་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་མ་སྐྱེས་པ་ཁོ་ནར་ཤེས་སོ། །དེས་ན་འདི་སྐད་དུ་དོན་དམ་པར་སྐྱེ་བ་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནི། འདི་དག་ཡང་དག་པའི་ཤེས་པས་སྐྱེ་བར་མ་གྲུབ་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་བཤད
Chinese
那麼，與如實現證勝義諦的無分別智慧相順應的智慧，就叫做勝義諦。此處說：地等，不是勝義諦中的生起。在《燃燒的理智》的注釋中說：所謂勝義諦，其中「義」的意思是應當了知的，所以是義，是應當考察和理解的同義詞。「勝」的意思是殊勝，是詞語的聲音。總合為「勝義」是因為它既是義，又是殊勝的，所以是勝義諦。或者說是殊勝的義，因為無分別智慧是殊勝的義，所以是殊勝的義。或者說是與勝義諦相符，因為與證悟勝義諦相順應的智慧具有勝義諦，所以是與勝義諦相符。這樣說了。所謂勝義諦不存在，或者說沒有的勝義諦，是後者。在其中說：那麼勝義諦是超越一切思維的，對事物自性的否定是文字的範疇，因此難道不會變成沒有否定的嗎？勝義諦有兩種，其中一種是不帶任何造作而進入的，是超越世間的，無漏的，無戲論的。第二種是帶有造作而進入的，是隨順福德和智慧資糧的，清淨的世間智慧，是有戲論的。此處因為將其視為立宗的差別，所以沒有過失。這樣說了。因此，應當理解為直到如理思擇的聞思智慧，而不是僅僅理解為聖者的後得位。在《中觀光明》中也說：無論說什麼勝義諦中沒有生起等等，其意義都應當理解為這樣：所有從正確的聽聞、思維和禪修中產生的智慧，因為具有不顛倒的對境，所以叫做勝義諦，因為這是它的勝義諦。現量和比量所造成的差別是存在的，依靠它們的力量，才能夠知道所有這些事物本來就是不生的。因此，所謂勝義諦中沒有生起，是指這些事物沒有通過正確的智慧而成立生起。
English
Then, the wisdom that accords with the non-conceptual wisdom that directly realizes the ultimate truth is called the ultimate truth. Here it says: Earth and so on, are not arising in the ultimate truth. In the commentary on 'The Blazing Intellect,' it says: The so-called ultimate truth, where 'truth' means that which should be known, so it is truth, a synonym for that which should be examined and understood. 'Ultimate' means supreme, it is the sound of the word. Combining them as 'ultimate truth' is because it is both truth and supreme, so it is ultimate truth. Or it is the supreme truth, because non-conceptual wisdom is the supreme truth, so it is the supreme truth. Or it is in accordance with the ultimate truth, because the wisdom that accords with the realization of the ultimate truth possesses the ultimate truth, so it is in accordance with the ultimate truth. Thus it is said. The ultimate truth that is said to not exist, or to be non-existent, is the latter. In that very text it says: Then, the ultimate truth is that which transcends all thought, and the negation of the nature of things is the realm of letters, so wouldn't it become without negation? The ultimate truth is of two kinds, one of which enters without any fabrication, is beyond the world, without outflows, without elaboration. The second is that which enters with fabrication, is in accordance with the accumulation of merit and wisdom, pure worldly wisdom, with elaboration. Here, because it is regarded as the distinction of the pledge itself, there is no fault. Thus it is said. Therefore, it should be understood as far as the wisdom of hearing and thinking that properly investigates that very nature, and not only as the subsequent attainment of the noble ones. In 'Madhyamaka Light' it also says: Whatever is said, such as there is no arising in the ultimate truth, the meaning should be understood as this: All the wisdom that arises from correct hearing, thinking, and meditation, because it has an undeluded object, is called the ultimate truth, because this is its ultimate truth. The difference made by direct perception and inference exists, and by their power, it is known that all these things are only unborn. Therefore, the statement that there is no arising in the ultimate truth means that these things are not established as arising through correct wisdom.