English
I thought that this would clearly distinguish between self-nature and the absence of self-nature. The second view is that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and others do not distinguish between self-nature and the absence of self-nature as explained in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. The third view is that the Aṣṭādaśasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and others, in the Maitreya Chapter, avoid clinging to the literal meaning and explain the provisional meaning, and the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra also explains the provisional meaning of these sutras. The reason for the intermediate sutras is the absence of the Maitreya Chapter. Therefore, the distinction of the three natures in the Maitreya Chapter and the explanation in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra are considered to be the same meaning. If these two are the same meaning, then it is acceptable, but Vasubandhu argues that the absence of self-nature and so on mentioned in the Mother Sutra are established as provisional meanings by the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and other sutras. However, the Mother Sutra itself points out the contradictions in the literal meaning, but the Maitreya Chapter does not establish this, so it is not the intention of the brothers. These two are very similar and difficult to distinguish, and if these two are the same meaning, then the statement that all dharmas are without self-nature in the ultimate truth and exist in conventional truth cannot be explained as the intention of the Mother Sutra, and it will become like the Vijñānavāda, and the research topic is also very important, which will be explained in the Madhyamaka section. Secondly, there are two aspects to distinguishing between definitive and provisional meanings based on the teachings of the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa Sūtra: first, quoting what the sutra says, and second, explaining its meaning. The first point is that although Śāntarakṣita and Nāgārjuna and his son did not directly mention the source of the sutra distinguishing between definitive and provisional meanings, they did explain it in terms of explaining the meaning of the sutra. That is, in the Prasannapadā, the Prajñāpradīpaṭīkā, and the Madhyamakāloka, the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa Sūtra is cited as the source, and the definitive and provisional meanings are established accordingly, so this sutra should also be used as the source here. So, what does this sutra say? What is a sutra of definitive meaning? What is a sutra of provisional meaning? Sutras that teach the establishment of conventional truth are called provisional meanings. Sutras that teach the establishment of ultimate truth are called definitive meanings. Sutras that teach various words and letters are provisional
Chinese
称之为“义”。 哪些甚深、难以观看、难以理解的经部，阐述了这些，就称之为“了义”。 哪些经部用各种各样的语言讲述我、有情、生命、滋养、士夫、补特伽罗、势力所生、势力子、作者和感受者，对于无主者，却像有主者一样进行阐述，那些就称之为“不了义”。 哪些经部宣说事物空性、无相、无愿、无有显现造作、无生、不生，以及无有情、无生命、无补特伽罗、无主，这些解脱之门，就称之为“了义”，因此说，应当依赖了义的经部，不要依赖不了义的经部。 如是说。 其中，最初的两个，是将两种真理作为可引导和需引导的对象，从所表达的角度区分了引导和需引导。 中间的两个，是说世俗谛的宣说，是用各种不同的词语来表达各种不同的意义；而胜义谛的宣说，是传达难以理解的意义，是断除了分别的同一味道，并非是其他的安立方式。 那么，以怎样的方式来宣说，才能成为世俗谛和胜义谛的宣说呢？最后的两个进行了阐述：像存在我和有情等一样地进行宣说，这就是世俗谛的宣说。 然而，并非仅仅是宣说这些，而是指所有依赖于作者，而宣说行为和作者的事物存在的情况。 将事物宣说为空性、无生等，这是在宣说法的无自性；而宣说无有情等，则是在宣说补特伽罗的无自性。 像这样进行宣说的方式，就是胜义谛的宣说。 在这里，通过双重宣说的要点，也需要在前面的宣说中，同时存在法和补特伽罗的宣说。 这里的无生等，并非是以常法作为特殊的基础来进行宣说，而是像经部中所说的那样，以蕴等事物和补特伽罗作为特殊的基础，来阐述这些事物没有真实性，仅仅是断除了这些基础的真实成立，这本身就是胜义，因此称为胜义谛的宣说。《三摩地王经》中也说：空性安乐
English
It is called "meaning." Those profound Sutras that are difficult to see and difficult to understand, which explain these, are called "definitive meaning." Those Sutras that explain self, sentient beings, life, nourishment, man, person, born of power, son of power, agent, and feeler in various languages, and which present as if there is a master for the masterless, those are called "provisional meaning." Those Sutras that show the door to liberation of emptiness of things, signlessness, wishlessness, absence of manifestation of fabrication, no birth, unborn, and no sentient beings, no life, no person, no master, those are called "definitive meaning," therefore it is said, one should rely on the Sutras of definitive meaning, and not rely on the Sutras of provisional meaning. Thus it is said. Among them, the first two make the two truths as objects to be guided and needing guidance, and distinguish guidance and needing guidance from the perspective of what is expressed. The middle two say that the explanation of conventional truth is to express various meanings with various different words; while the explanation of ultimate truth is to convey meanings that are difficult to understand, and is the same taste of cutting off distinctions, and is not another way of establishing. Then, in what way does the explanation become the explanation of conventional truth and ultimate truth? The last two explain: Explaining as if there is self and sentient beings, etc., this is the explanation of conventional truth. However, it is not just explaining these, but it refers to all situations where the existence of actions and agents is explained in reliance on the agent. Explaining things as emptiness, no birth, etc., this is explaining the selflessness of phenomena; while explaining no sentient beings, etc., is explaining the selflessness of the person. The way of explaining in this way is the explanation of ultimate truth. Here, through the key point of double explanation, it is also necessary to have the explanation of both phenomena and person in the previous explanation. Here, no birth, etc., is not explained by taking a permanent phenomenon as a special basis, but as it is said in the Sutra itself, by taking things such as aggregates and the person as a special basis, to explain that these things have no reality, and merely cutting off the true establishment of these bases, that itself is the ultimate, therefore it is called the explanation of ultimate truth. The Samadhiraja Sutra also says: Emptiness is bliss.
Tibetan
བར་གཤེགས་པས་བཤད་པ་ལྟར། །ངེས་དོན་མདོ་སྡེ་དག་གི་བྱེ་བྲག་ཤེས། །གང་ལས་སེམས་ཅན་གང་ཟག་སྐྱེས་བུ་བསྟན། །ཆོས་དེ་ཐམས་ཅད་དྲང་བའི་དོན་དུ་ཤེས། །ཞེས་དྲང་ངེས་ཕྱེ་བ་ཡང་སྔ་མ་དང་དོན་མཐུན་པར་ཚིག་གསལ་ལས་བཤད་དོ། །དྲང་དོན་གྱི་མདོ་སྡེས་གདུལ་བྱ་ཁ་དྲང་པར་བྱ་བ་ཡང་ཡིན་མོད་ཀྱང་དེ་ནི་དྲང་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་མིན་གྱི་མདོའི་དོན་དེའི་མདོ་ལས་གཞན་དུ་དྲ་དགོས་མི་དགོས་ཀྱི་དྲང་ཚུལ་དེ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དོན་དྲང་དགོས་པ་འདི་ལ་གཉིས་ལས། ཕ་དང་མ་ནི་བསད་བྱས་ཤིང༌། ཞེས་ཕ་མ་བསད་པར་གསུངས་པ་ནི་དངོས་ཟིན་གྱི་དོན་ཕ་མ་ལས་གཞན་དུ་ལས་ཀྱི་སྲིད་པ་དང་སྲེད་པ་ལ་དྲང་དགོས་པ་ལྟ་བུ་ནི་ཚུལ་གཅིག་གོ །ཚུལ་གཉིས་པ་ནི། ལས་དཀར་ནག་ལས་འབྲས་བུ་བདེ་སྡུག་འབྱུང་བར་གསུངས་པ་ལ་ལས་གཉིས་ཀྱིས་བདེ་སྡུག་བསྐྱེད་ པ་དེ་དེ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ཡིན་ལུགས་ཡིན་གྱི་དེ་མིན་པའི་དེ་དག་གི་ཡིན་ལུགས་མེད་པས། མདོ་དེའི་དོན་གྱི་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་ནི་དེར་ངེས་པས་དེ་ལས་གཞན་དུ་དྲང་དུ་མི་རུང་ངོ་ཞེས་སྨྲ་བ་ལ། །དེའི་དོན་གཉིས་ཀྱི་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་ནི་དངོས་ཟིན་དེ་ལས་གཞན་དུ་དྲང་དགོས་སོ་ཞེས་འཆད་པ་ལྟ་བུའོ། །དེས་ན་དབུ་མ་སྣང་བ་ལས། །ངེས་པའི་དོན་ཀྱང་གང་ལ་བྱ་ཞེ་ན། ཚད་མ་དང་བཅས་པ་དང་དོན་དམ་པའི་དབང་དུ་མཛད་ནས་བཤད་པ་གང་ཡིན་པ་སྟེ། དེ་ནི་དེ་ལས་ལོགས་ཤིག་ཏུ་གཞན་གྱིས་གང་དུ་ཡང་དྲང་བར་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཞེས་གསུངས་ཏེ། །ཇི་ལྟར་བསྟན་པ་ལྟར་གྱི་དོན་ཡོད་མེད་ལ་དྲང་ངེས་སུ་བྱེད་ན་ཚད་མ་དང་བཅས་པས་ཆོག་ཀྱང་དེས་མི་ཆོག་པས་དོན་དམ་པའི་དབང་དུ་མཛད་པ་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །དེས་ན་ས་བོན་ལས་མྱུ་གུ་སྐྱེ་བ་སོགས་གསུངས་པ་ལ་བསྟན་པ་ལྟར་གྱི་དོན་ལ་ཚད་མའི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་ཡོད་ཀྱང་དོན་དམ་པའི་དབང་དུ་མཛད་པ་མིན་པས་དྲང་དོན་ཡིན་ཏེ་འདིའི་དོན་ལས་དོན་གཞན་འདྲེན་ལུགས་བཤད་ཟིན་པ་ལྟར་རོ། །དེས་ན་དངོས་པོ་རྣམས་ལ་བདེན་པའི་སྐྱེ་བ་མེད་པར་གསུངས་པ་ནི་ཚད་མ་དང་ཡང་ལྡན་ལ་ཇི་ལྟར་བསྟན་པའི་དོན་དེ་ཆོས་དེའི་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཉིད་མིན་པར་དོན་གཞན་དུ་ཡང་དྲང་མི་ནུས་པ་དེ་འདྲ་བའི་མདོ་སྡེ་རྣམས་ངེས་པའི་དོན་ཏེ། འདྲེན་ཚུལ་གཉིས་གང་གི་སྒོ་ནས་ཀྱང་གཞན་དུ་དྲང་བར་མི་ནུས་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །འདིའི་དོན་གཞན་དུ་དྲང་དགོས་མི་དགོས་ཀྱི་དབང་དུ་བྱས་ནས་དྲང་ངེས་ འཇོག་པ་ན་གསུང་རབ་ཉིད་དྲང་ངེས་ཀྱི་མཚན་གཞིར་གཟུང་ལ། གཞན་དུ་དྲང་དགོས་མི་དགོས་ཀྱི་དོན་ལ་དྲང་ངེས་སུ་འཇོག་པ་ན་ཀུ
Chinese
如中阴身所说，了知了义经部的差别，从中宣说有情、补特伽罗、士夫，所有这些法要知道都是不了义。如是区分了义与不了义，在《词句明晰》中也说与前者意义相符。不了义的经部虽然也是为了调伏所化而正直引导，但这并不是“直”的意义，而是经的意义需要或不需要从该经引向其他经的引导方式。对于需要引导的意义，有两种情况：如“父亲和母亲被杀”所说，说杀害父母，这是指需要将实际意义从父母引导到业的生存和贪爱等其他方面，这是一种方式。第二种方式是：说从善业和恶业产生安乐和痛苦的果报，两种业产生安乐和痛苦，这是它们二者的本性，除此之外没有它们的本性。因此，该经的意义的真如就确定在那里，不能从那里引导到其他地方。如果有人这样说，那么，就像解释说那两个意义的真如需要从实际意义引导到其他地方一样。因此，在《中观光明释》中说：“如果问，什么是决定意义？就是以量和胜义谛为依据而宣说的，那是不能被其他人从那里引导到其他地方的。”如是说。如果按照所显示的那样，根据意义的有无来区分了义和不了义，那么有量就足够了，但因为这还不够，所以说“以胜义谛为依据”。因此，对于所说的从种子生出苗芽等，虽然按照所显示的意义有量的成立，但因为不是以胜义谛为依据，所以是不了义，因为已经说了如何从此意义引出其他意义。因此，对于所说的诸法没有真实的生，这既符合量，而且所显示的意义不是该法的真如，也不能引导到其他意义，像这样的经部就是了义，因为无论通过哪种引导方式都不能引导到其他地方。如果以是否需要将此意义引导到其他地方为依据来安立了义和不了义，那么就应将佛语本身作为了义和不了义的所依，如果将是否需要引导到其他地方的意义安立为了义和不了义，那么……
English
As explained by the intermediate being, understand the distinctions of definitive meaning sutras. From which sentient beings, individuals, and persons are taught. Know that all those teachings are of provisional meaning. Thus, the distinction between provisional and definitive meaning is also explained in "Clear Words" as being consistent with the former meaning. Although the sutras of provisional meaning are also for guiding those to be tamed in a straightforward manner, that is not the meaning of "straightforward," but rather the way of guiding the meaning of the sutra, whether it needs to be led from that sutra to another or not. There are two aspects to this need for guiding the meaning. For example, when it is said, "The father and mother were killed," the statement about killing parents needs to be guided from the actual meaning of parents to other aspects such as the existence of karma and craving. This is one way. The second way is: When it is said that happiness and suffering arise from white and black karma, the happiness and suffering produced by the two karmas are the nature of those two, and there is no nature of them other than that. Therefore, the suchness of the meaning of that sutra is definite there, and it is not permissible to guide it elsewhere. If someone says that, it is like explaining that the suchness of those two meanings needs to be guided from the actual meaning to another place. Therefore, in the "Illumination of the Middle Way," it is said: "If one asks, what is definitive meaning? It is that which is explained based on valid cognition and ultimate truth, and it cannot be guided by others from there to anywhere else." Thus it is said. If one distinguishes between provisional and definitive meaning based on the presence or absence of meaning as shown, then valid cognition is sufficient, but because that is not sufficient, it is said, "based on ultimate truth." Therefore, regarding the statement that sprouts arise from seeds, etc., although there is proof of valid cognition for the meaning as shown, it is provisional meaning because it is not based on ultimate truth, as it has already been explained how to derive other meanings from this meaning. Therefore, the statement that phenomena do not have true arising is both in accordance with valid cognition and the meaning as shown is not the suchness of that dharma, nor can it be guided to another meaning. Sutras of that kind are of definitive meaning, because they cannot be guided to another place through either of the two ways of guiding. If one establishes definitive and provisional meaning based on whether or not it is necessary to guide this meaning to another place, then the Buddha's words themselves should be taken as the basis for definitive and provisional meaning. If one establishes definitive and provisional meaning based on the meaning of whether or not it is necessary to guide to another place, then...