Chinese
།出自《般若波罗蜜多心经》：无论任何种姓的男子或种姓的女子，若欲修习甚深般若波罗蜜多，应如是观，即对五蕴也应如实了知其自性为空性。如是说。又出自《为声闻所说经》：色如水泡聚，受如水中泡。想如阳焰现，行如芭蕉树。识如幻术般，日之亲友说。如是说。特别是，如一法自性为空，其余一切法也应如是观，出自《虚空藏定经》：以一法知一切法，如幻如阳焰。不可执持亦不可积聚，虚妄且非真实，如是随顺了知。彼不久行至菩提心要。如是说。又出自《三昧王经》：如汝知我之想，如是应以智慧施于一切。一切诸法皆是彼之自性，清净如虚空。以一亦能知一切，以一亦能见一切。纵说诸多亦不生骄慢。如是说。谓于我之所执之基，寻求自性而不得，如是了知补特伽罗无我之方式，亦应施于其他一切法。次第亦如是，且无我之理亦谓法与补特伽罗相同。三者：如是宣说蕴之因果，若执彼非仅是名言安立，而是以自性存在，则以理成立因果定然不容有，其后于仅是名言安立之生起、生灭及触受等一切法，心想皆是正法，于此应修习于显现分之定解与空性分之定解二者互相助益之缘起理。蕴观察之九偈颂之自体，即第四品之释。第三、于界破法我分三：总说之基
English
From the Heart Sutra of the Perfection of Wisdom: Any son or daughter of good family who wishes to practice the profound Perfection of Wisdom should view it in this way: they should also truly and correctly observe that those five aggregates are empty of inherent existence. Thus it is said. Also from the Sutra Spoken to the Hearers: Form is like a mass of foam, Feeling is like bubbles of water. Perception is like a mirage, Formations are like plantain trees. Consciousness is like an illusion, Said the Kinsman of the Sun. Thus it is said. In particular, just as one dharma is empty of inherent existence, so too should all others be viewed in that way, from the Sutra of the Samadhi of the Treasury of Space: Through one dharma, all dharmas are known to be like illusions and mirages. They cannot be grasped or accumulated, They are false and not real, thus one comes to understand. That one will soon go to the heart of enlightenment. Thus it is said. And also from the King of Samadhi Sutra: Just as you know my thought, Apply that knowledge to all. All dharmas are of that nature, Pure like the sky. Through one, all is known. Through one, all is seen. Even if many things are said, There is no pride. Thus it is said. That is, the way to realize the selflessness of the person, who, when searching for the inherent existence of the basis of what is thought of as "I," does not find it, is said to be applied to all other dharmas as well. The order is also like that, and the way of selflessness is also said to be the same for dharmas and persons. Third: In this way, if it is said that the cause and effect of the aggregates are not merely nominal designations, but exist by their own nature, then it is established by reason that cause and effect are absolutely impossible. After that, one should train one's mind in the reasoning of dependent origination, where the certainty of the side of appearance and the certainty of the side of emptiness mutually assist each other, thinking that all phenomena, such as arising, ceasing, and feeling, are all valid dharmas in mere nominal designation. The examination of the aggregates is the explanation of the fourth chapter, which is the nature of nine verses. Third, refuting the self of phenomena in the elements has three parts: the basis of the general statement
Chinese
略述。与了义经相结合。简而言之，指明名称。第一点是：此处所说的“界”等，因为没有遮止的缘故。世尊也说：“大王，大丈夫，这个人是六界。”即地、水、火、风、空、识六界，以及它们的体性：坚硬、湿润、温暖、流动、无碍、能辨别。既然没有自性，显示体性是不合理的，因为有体性的缘故，诸界是有自性的。这样一来，就像界一样，蕴和处也是有自性的。如果诸界是有自性的，那么其他二者现在也是存在的，但它们是没有自性的。如何没有自性呢？这有两点：破斥六界自性成立。呵责执着于有无的边见。第一点有两点：破斥虚空界自性成立。此理也适用于其余诸界。第一点有三点：破斥虚空界有名称。破斥成立实有和非实有。总结所破斥的内容。第一点有三点：破斥名基。破斥名相。总结。第一点有两点：破斥名相的运用。说明由此破斥了名基。第一点有两点：依靠先后而破斥名相的运用。依靠名相的有无而破斥名相的运用。第一点是：经中虽然先说了地界，但此处首先破斥虚空界自性成立，是因为世间认为虚空是空性的，而其他界没有这样认为，因此为了用已知的道理来证明未知的道理，所以说“虚空的名相之前”等等。此处无论自方他方，任何宗派都不认为名基先于名相，因此如果说在虚空的名相之前没有虚空，这是不合理的。其他宗派不认为名基先于名相，所以仅仅说它不存在是不成立的。那么是什么呢？这是佛护论师所说：如果虚空的名相之前，有稍微一点叫做虚空的东西，那么指明‘这个虚空的名相是这个’也是合理的。也就是说，如果先后二者存在，那么像那样指明是合理的，如果不存在，那么不合理，因此后者是合理的。
English
A brief explanation. Combined with the definitive meaning sutra. In short, indicate the name. The first point is: The "realms" mentioned here, etc., are because there is no prohibition. The World Honored One also said: "Great King, great man, this person is the six realms." That is, the six realms of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, and their characteristics: hardness, wetness, warmth, movement, unobstructedness, and the ability to distinguish. Since there is no self-nature, it is unreasonable to show the characteristics. Because there are characteristics, the realms are with self-nature. In this way, like the realms, the aggregates and sources are also with self-nature. If the realms are with self-nature, then the other two are also existing now, but they are without self-nature. How is it without self-nature? There are two points to this: Refuting the establishment of the six realms' self-nature. Criticizing clinging to the extreme views of existence and non-existence. The first point has two points: Refuting the establishment of the space realm's self-nature. This reasoning also applies to the remaining realms. The first point has three points: Refuting the space realm having a name. Refuting the establishment of real existence and non-real existence. Summarizing what has been refuted. The first point has three points: Refuting the base of the name. Refuting the characteristics of the name. Summarizing. The first point has two points: Refuting the application of the name. Explaining that the base of the name is refuted by this. The first point has two points: Refuting the application of the name based on before and after. Refuting the application of the name based on the existence or non-existence of the name. The first point is: Although the earth realm is mentioned first in the sutra, here, the first refutation of the establishment of the space realm's self-nature is because the world thinks that space is empty, and the other realms are not thought of in this way. Therefore, in order to prove the unknown with the known reason, it is said "before the name of space" and so on. Here, no matter which sect, self or other, thinks that the base of the name precedes the name. Therefore, if it is said that there is no space before the name of space, it is unreasonable. Other sects do not think that the base of the name precedes the name, so it is not established to simply say that it does not exist. So what is it? This is what Buddhapālita said: If before the name of space, there is a little something called space, then it is also reasonable to point out 'this name of space is this'. That is to say, if the two, before and after, exist, then it is reasonable to point out like that. If it does not exist, then it is unreasonable, so the latter is reasonable.
Tibetan
་སྔ་མ་དེའི་ཁྱབ་བྱེད་དུ་བསྟན་ནས་ཁྱབ་བྱེད་འགོག་པའོ། །དེ་ཡང་མདོ་ནས་མི་སྒྲིབ་པ་ནམ་མཁའི་མཚན་ཉིད་དུ་གསུངས་པ་ཙམ་ཞིག་རང་ཡང་འདོད་པས་ཕ་རོལ་པོས་མཚན་གཞི་ནམ་མཁའ་ལ། མི་སྒྲིབ་པ་མཚན་ཉིད་དུ་འཇུག་པར་གསུངས་པ་དེ་རང་ གི་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་མཚན་མཚོན་ཡིན་པར་འདོད་པ་ལྟར་ན་སྔ་ཕྱི་དེ་ཡོད་དགོས་ཞེས་སྟོན་པའོ། །དེ་ལྟར་དགོས་པའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ནི་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པའི་དུས་ནི་གསུམ་དུ་ངེས་ལ་དུས་མཉམ་པ་ལ་འཇུག་པ་ནི་མཚན་ཉིད་བཅས་ལ་མིན་ཞེས་པར་འགོག་ཅིང༌། མཚན་ཉིད་སྔ་ཞིང་མཚན་གཞི་ཕྱི་བ་ལ་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་དང་དེ་ལས་བཟློག་པ་ལ་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་གཉིས་ཕྱི་མ་འགོག་དཀའ་སྟེ། འཇུག་གཞི་སྔར་ཡོད་པ་ལ་འཇུག་པ་པོ་ཕྱིས་འཇུག་པའི་དོགས་པ་ཆེ་ལ་འཇུག་ས་སྔར་མེད་པར་ངེས་ན་སྔར་ཞུགས་པར་འཛིན་པ་ཆུང་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེས་ན་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྔ་རོལ་དུ་མཚན་གཞི་ཡོད་པ་ཙམ་འགོག་པར་མཛད་དོ། །གལ་ཏེ་སྒྲིབ་ཐོགས་མེད་པ་ནམ་མཁའ་ལ་མཚན་ཉིད་དུ་འཇུག་པ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཡོད་ན་དུས་གཞན་གཉིས་སུ་འཇུག་པ་མི་འཐད་པས། མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་ལས་སྔ་རོལ་དུ་མཚན་གཞི་ནམ་མཁའ་ཡོད་པ་ལ་འཇུག་དགོས་ན། ནམ་མཁའི་མཚན་ཉིད་སྒྲིབ་ཐོགས་མེད་པའི་སྔ་རོལ་ན་འཇུག་གཞི་ནམ་མཁའ་དེ་ཅུང་ཟད་ཀྱང་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་མཚན་ཉིད་གང་དུ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར། གལ་ཏེ་མཚན་ཉིད་སྒྲིབ་ཐོགས་མེད་པ་ལས་ནམ་མཁའ་སྔ་བར་གྱུར་ན་དེའི་དུས་ན་མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་མེད་པར་ཐལ་བར་འགྱུར་ལ་དེ་ལྟ་ན་ནམ་མཁའ་ཡང་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་པའི་དངོས་པོ་སྟེ་དོན་འགའ་ཡང་གཞུང་ལུགས་གང་ནའང་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གལ་ཏེ་རེ་ཞིག་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ནི་ཡོད་ལ་འཇུག་པ་དེ་ཡང་མཚན་གཞི་ལ་ཡིན་པས་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ཡོད་པས་མཚན་གཞི་ ཡང་ཡོད་དོ་ཞེ་ན། མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྔ་རོལ་ན་མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་པའི་དངོས་པོ་སྟེ་དོན་མེད་དོ་ཞེས་ནི་བཤད་ཟིན་ཏོ། །དེ་ལྟ་ཡིན་ན་མཚན་ཉིད་དེ་གང་དུ་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར་བའི་གཞི་མེད་པས་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་མེད་དོ། །འདི་ནི་མཚན་ཉིད་ཀྱི་སྔ་རོལ་ན་མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་ཀྱང་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ཡོད་སྙམ་པ་འགོག་པའོ། །གཉིས་པ་ནི། གཞན་ཡང་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་ཡོད་ན་གསུམ་ལས་མི་འདའ་ལ་དེ་ཡང་མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་པ་ལ་མཚན་ཉིད་ནི་མི་འཇུག་སྟེ། མཚན་ཉིད་མེད་པའི་ཆོས་ཐ་སྙད་དུ་ཡང་མི་སྲིད་པས་གཞི་མེད་པ་ལ་འཇུག་པ་འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །མཚན་ཉིད་དང་བཅས་པའི་དོན་ལ་ཡང་མཚན་ཉིད་འཇུག་པ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་
Chinese
是显示前者的遍及，从而遮止遍及。也就是，经部中仅仅承认“无障蔽是虚空的体性”的说法，对方认为，在基（mthan gzhi）虚空上，无障蔽作为体性而存在，如同认为那是其自性的标志一样，因此必须有先后。显示必须如此的原因是，体性存在的时机必定是三种，遮止在同时存在的情况下，体性不是与体性一起存在。体性先于基，基后于体性，体性存在，以及与此相反的情况，后两者难以遮止。因为，对于先前存在的存在之基，存在者后来存在的情况可能性大，如果确定存在之处先前不存在，那么执着于先前存在的情况就小。因此，只是遮止了体性之前存在基。如果无障蔽作为体性存在于虚空是自性存在，那么在其他两种时机存在就不合理。如果必须存在于体性之前就存在的基虚空上，那么在虚空的体性无障蔽之前，作为存在之基的虚空丝毫也不存在，那么体性将存在于何处？如果虚空先于体性无障蔽，那么在那时，体性将成为不存在，如果那样，虚空也将成为不存在，因为在任何论典中，都不存在没有体性的事物。如果暂时认为体性的存在是存在的，并且存在也是在基上，因此体性的存在导致基也存在，那么，已经说过，在体性之前，不存在没有体性的事物。如果那样，由于没有体性将存在的基础，因此体性的存在是不存在的。这是为了遮止认为在体性之前没有体性，但体性的存在是存在的想法。第二，此外，如果体性的存在是自性存在，那么不会超出三种情况，也就是，体性不会存在于没有体性的事物上，因为没有体性的法，即使在名言中也不可能存在，因此存在于没有基础的事物上是相违的。体性存在于具有体性的事物上也是自性存在。
English
It shows the pervasion of the former, thereby preventing pervasion. That is, the Sutra only acknowledges the statement that "unobstructedness is the nature of space." The opponent believes that on the basis (mthan gzhi) of space, unobstructedness exists as a nature, just as it is considered to be its own nature's mark, so there must be a before and after. The reason why it is necessary to show that the time of existence of nature must be three, and to prevent the existence at the same time, the nature does not exist with the nature. The nature is earlier than the base, and the base is later than the nature. It is difficult to prevent the latter two cases of the existence of nature and the opposite. Because, for the existing base of existence, the possibility of the existence of the existing person later is great, if it is determined that the place of existence does not exist before, then the attachment to the previous existence is small. Therefore, it only prevents the existence of the base before the nature. If the unobstructedness as the nature exists in space is self-existent, then it is unreasonable to exist in the other two times. If it must exist on the base space that existed before the nature, then before the nature of space is unobstructed, the space as the base of existence does not exist at all, then where will the nature exist? If space precedes the nature of unobstructedness, then at that time, the nature will become non-existent, and if so, space will also become non-existent, because in any treatise, there is no object without nature. If it is temporarily considered that the existence of nature is existence, and existence is also on the base, therefore the existence of nature leads to the existence of the base, then it has been said that before the nature, there is no object without nature. If so, since there is no basis for the nature to exist, the existence of the nature is non-existent. This is to prevent the idea that there is no nature before the nature, but the existence of the nature is existent. Second, in addition, if the existence of nature is self-existent, then it will not exceed three situations, that is, nature will not exist on things without nature, because the law without nature, even in name, is impossible, so existence on things without a basis is contradictory. The existence of nature on things with nature is also self-existent.