Chinese
仅仅是分别念，因此在舍弃它的同时，也意在舍弃另一方面。第二方面有二：一是亲对品的数量确定，二是作用上的辩论破斥。第一方面有二：一是辩论，二是回答。第一是：难道修道支分的差别不是多于九种吗？因为是这样。因为诸佛之母三者各自在修道的一种形态上作意，从而宣说了产生无量、无数、无边三种福德。遍及是有的，因为果的多少随因而行。理由成立，如若不离大菩提之母，则无量、无数、无边的福德增长。因为宣说了不离九种修道之境而如此产生。如果承认，认为有九种形态，那么怎么说是九种数量呢？在那里不确定。第二方面有二，第一是：追随最初两个偈颂在日光中辩论，后面两个偈颂作为回答，在《八千颂释》、《现观庄严论释》、《明灯论》、《寂天》、《月称》中也是如此。两个注释及其追随者和Raakir从心中取出辩论，全部四个都作为回答。对此，在修道最后宣说了产生无量等三种，询问了这三种的体性不同之处，作为回答，通过遮止颠倒的增益而宣说了不同之处：饶益，所谓无量，是指不接近于在有为界的界限或无为界的界限中计数。所谓无数，是指在三时中不观察到量。所谓无边，是指任何其他补特伽罗的形态都不能把握其量。这样宣说了，并且询问了色等一切也是如此的形态吗？作为回答，承认有。并且询问了以何种方式成为如此的形态，作为回答，宣说了以空性而成为如此。对此，什么是空性呢？就是不观察，没有数量也是它。没有量也是它。世尊，在空性中不观察到穷尽，也不观察到数量，也不观察到衡量，也不观察到量。世尊，因此对于这些法
English
It is merely conceptual thought, so while abandoning it, it is also intended to abandon the other aspect. The second aspect has two parts: first, the determination of the number of antidotes, and second, the debate and refutation regarding their function. The first aspect has two parts: first, the debate, and second, the answer. The first is: Isn't the differentiation of the divisions of the path of meditation more than nine types? Because it is so. Because the three mothers of the Buddhas each contemplate on a form of the path of meditation, thereby proclaiming the generation of three kinds of merit: immeasurable, countless, and boundless. The pervasiveness exists, because the quantity of the result follows the cause. The reason is established, as it is said that as long as one does not separate from the great Bodhi-mother, immeasurable, countless, and boundless merit will increase. Because it is proclaimed that such arises from not being separated from the realm of the nine paths of meditation. If it is admitted that there are nine forms, then how can it be said that there are nine numbers? It is not definite there. The second aspect has two parts, the first being: Following the first two verses debating in the sunlight, and the latter two verses as answers, it is also the same in the "Eight Thousand Verse Commentary," "Ornament for Clear Realization Commentary," "Lamp for Wisdom," "Shantideva," and "Chandrakirti." The two commentaries and their followers, and Raakir, extracted the debate from their hearts, and all four were made as answers. Regarding this, at the end of the path of meditation, it is proclaimed that three things such as immeasurable arise. In response to the question about the differences in the characteristics of these three, as an answer, the differences are proclaimed by preventing the imputation of perversion: "Rabjor, what is called immeasurable, is that which does not come close to being counted in the realm of conditioned or unconditioned phenomena." "What is called uncountable is that which does not perceive a measure in the three times." "What is called boundless is that which cannot be measured by any other form of person." Thus it was proclaimed, and when asked whether all forms and so on are also in such a form, it was acknowledged that they are. And when asked by what means it becomes such a form, it was proclaimed that it is so by emptiness. Regarding this, what is emptiness? It is not observed, and the absence of number is also it. The absence of measure is also it. Bhagavan, in emptiness, exhaustion is not observed, nor is number observed, nor is measurement observed, nor is quantity observed. Bhagavan, therefore, for these dharmas
Chinese
“于义或于字，不观为异。”因为空性没有差别，所以在胜义谛上，没有无数等的差别。不能从意义和文字的角度来观察差别，这个辩论被总结为：从无数到非忍。认为以空性的理由说无数等，说三种相违背。世尊说：“善现，是这样的，是这样的，于这些法，于义或于字，不观为异。”善现，然而对于不可言说的意义，如来说说“无尽”或者说“无数”，或者说“不可量”，或者说“无量”，或者说从“空”到“涅槃”所明显说的一切，这是如来大悲的同分所显示的。这被称为是辩论承认在前而回答，虽然在胜义谛上没有三种意义，但在世俗谛上，为了断除显现执着的实执，说三种词语，对于空性来说，连可说的自性也没有，哪里还有从实执的角度来说三种意义的差别呢？这被总结为从世俗到认可，考虑到消除增益的需求，说了三种，同样，为了阻止对空性的执着，也说了“空性无相”等等。这是法王俄钦波（Ngok Chenpo）的观点，是经部和《二观察》的观点。显示，是指显示者大悲。它的同分是说无尽和无数等的经典，因为那是它的果。因此，连接“显示的同分”，虽然在胜义谛上不可说，但考虑到分别差别，在世俗谛上说，这是寂天（Śānti）的观点。第二，阿阇黎将辩论的处所和辩论的自性等，按照经文的字面意思进行关联安排，排列成八行，这里对每一句都做了回答，这是因为论典中确定了九种修道，并且经中说那些每一个都会产生三种福德。那么，果的数量也应该随着因的变化。
English
“In meaning or in letter, one does not observe difference.” Because emptiness has no difference, therefore, in ultimate truth, there is no distinction by countless, etc. It is not possible to examine the difference from the perspective of meaning and letter. This debate is summarized as: from countless to non-patience. It is thought that if one speaks of countless, etc., with the reason of emptiness, it contradicts speaking of three aspects. The Blessed One said, “Subhuti, it is so, it is so, in these dharmas, in meaning or in letter, one does not observe difference.” Subhuti, however, for the unspeakable meaning, the Thus-Gone One says “inexhaustible” or says “countless,” or says “immeasurable,” or says “unlimited,” or says from “emptiness” to whatever is manifestly spoken of as “nirvana,” this is shown by the common cause of the Thus-Gone One's great compassion. This is called answering with the admission of debate in advance, although there are no three meanings in ultimate truth, in conventional truth, in order to cut off the grasping of manifest clinging, three words are spoken, but for emptiness, there is not even a nature to be spoken of, how much more is there a difference of three meanings from the perspective of substantial clinging? This is summarized as from conventional to acceptance, considering the need to eliminate superimposition, three are spoken, and similarly, in order to prevent clinging to emptiness, it is also said “emptiness is without characteristics,” etc. This is the view of the Dharma King Ngok Chenpo, the view of the Sutra School and the Two Observations. Showing refers to the shower, great compassion. Its common cause is the scriptures that speak of inexhaustible and countless, etc., because that is its fruit. Therefore, connecting “the common cause of showing,” although it is unspeakable in ultimate truth, but considering the distinctions of separation, it is spoken of in conventional truth, this is the view of Śānti. Secondly, the teacher arranges the place of debate and the nature of debate, etc., in relation to the literal meaning of the sutra, arranged in eight lines, and here each verse is answered, because the treatise determines nine paths of cultivation, and the sutra says that each of those will produce three merits. Then, the number of fruits should also change with the change of causes.
Chinese
因此产生了这二者是否矛盾的疑问。考虑到这四点都可以作为对该疑问的回答，因此也断除了对论著的疑问。这里所说的二谛，是指远离戏论与不远离戏论的中观派所说的，还是指在名言中被认为是实物自相和反体的总相呢？觉囊派两种观点都有，而且据说大自在和琼波的观点是后者，与此相关的观点是前者，而且吉祥洽巴仁热也赞同后者。在《释论》中，也将一个事物从许多同类和异类中区分出来的反体，作为区分的标准，并且因为这个标准不能理解真正的标准，所以阿阇黎也赞同，引用了第一二句的解释，因此很明显赞同后一种观点。按照两种解释，这本身就是经文的意义。在《庄严经释》中，依赖于反体而产生的各种自性之义，是与一个意义相结合的，因此在胜义中，如所说的那样，具有标准的修行道是不允许成为不同的。如此等等。通过修行道所产生的各种福德，是同一个事物依赖于反体而结合的，因此在胜义中，这是没有差别的理由。此外，按照您的观点，在世俗中，小道的三个果实是实体不同还是相同？如果是不同的，那么就与经文中说依赖于反体而安立相矛盾。如果不是，那么为了遮止这些实体不同，而特别指出胜义谛是没有意义的，因为在名言中也不是实体不同的。因此，前者的想法是，像小道一样的果实中所说的三种福德，被认为是实体不同的，如果是这样，那么产生它们的道也会变成三种实体，因为比九种更多，所以认为九种确定的数量会消失，这是因为不了解数量确定是对类别而言，而认为是针对实体而言。对此的反驳是，即使按照他的想法，数量确定也不会消失，即使小道有许多实体，但作为修行小道，它们属于同一类别。阿阇黎是这样认为的，但是，遮止产生三种不同的实体，是因为他认为这是数量不确定的理由，而理由是
English
Therefore, the doubt arises whether these two are contradictory. Considering that these four points can all serve as answers to that doubt, the doubt about the treatise is also dispelled. Here, are the two truths spoken of referring to what is said in the Madhyamaka school that is either free from or not free from elaboration, or are they referring to the general characteristic of an object that is considered in conventional terms as a self-characteristic of a substance and a counter-entity? Both views of the Jonangpas exist, and it is said that the view of the Great Self-existent and Kyungpo is the latter, and the related view is the former, and the glorious Chapa Rinchen also agrees with the latter. In the Commentary, the counter-entity that distinguishes one thing from many similar and dissimilar things is also made the standard of distinction, and because that standard cannot understand the real standard, the Acharya also agrees, citing the explanation of the first two sentences, so it is clear that he agrees with the latter view. According to the two explanations, this itself is the meaning of the scripture. In the Ornament of Realization, the meaning of various natures that arise in dependence on counter-entities is combined with one meaning, therefore, in the ultimate sense, it is not permissible for the path of meditation that has the standard as spoken of to become different. And so on. The various merits produced by the path of meditation are combined by the same thing depending on the counter-entity, therefore, in the ultimate sense, this is the reason why there is no difference. Furthermore, according to your view, in the conventional sense, are the three fruits of the small path different or the same in substance? If they are different, then it contradicts the scripture which says that they are established in dependence on counter-entities. If not, then it is meaningless to specifically point out the ultimate truth in order to prevent these different substances, because they are not different substances even in conventional terms. Therefore, the former's idea is that the three merits mentioned as fruits like the small path are considered to be different substances, and if so, then the path that produces them will also become three substances, because it is more than nine, so it is thought that the definite number of nine will disappear, this is because they do not understand that the definite number is for the category, but think that it is for the substance. The refutation to this is that even according to his idea, the definite number will not disappear, even if there are many substances in the small path, but as the small path of meditation, they belong to the same category. The Acharya thinks this way, but the reason for preventing the production of three different substances is that he takes this as the reason for the indefinite number, and the reason is
Chinese
如果反驳说，持有具理由的非确定数量，也是考虑到反驳而作的，并且也能间接理解。如果将果实福德的多种不同反体理解为一种事物，那么也将原因修道多种事物理解为一种类别。因此，如前行方所愿的宗法不成办，即使成办，数量确定不灭也是关键所在。到此为止即可。要进入正文，这有三点：无数等不成办为不同事物；显示不同反体的必要；因此显示数量确定不灭。第一点是：以词语表达的无数、衡量、无量三种所显示的体性，即以经中所说的那样产生的理由，将它们区分为不同事物的体性是不容许的，即没有能力。对于什么呢？对于如前所说的具有九种特征的九种修道的果实福德。如果参照什么呢？参照果实福德三种的各自特征的事物，即对于胜义谛。理由是：修道所近生的福德之义唯一，即对于唯一者，从具有数量等不同之处所反的不同的反体来看，只是将无数等不同的反体之相完全结合而已。第二点是：如果无数等是不同的反体，那么仅以无数等之一显示就足够了，为何要以三种显示呢？如果说，为了显示多种反体的法的体性，无数等如经中所广说，以及简略显示的那些体性虽然是一种，但以多种名称从世俗反体的角度来显示，是为了向孩童之辈充分显示修道能产生巨大和众多的果实，即为了那个目的，如来是这样认为的。其必要也是为了让他们进入修道。如果说，显示无数等是何者的等起因，那么是成为大悲的等起因，即是果实。对于此，又从缘众生等三种中，是缘无所缘的悲心。那又是如何呢？以缘离戏法界的自性，即具有相状。对此，法界与无数等……