Chinese
那么，什么是空性的空性呢？因为兔子的角和所破的相，两者在所知中都是不存在的。如果承认，那么兔子的角就是色的自性，兔角的空性就是色的法性。因为这个承认。如果也承认那个，那么从今以后关于这方面我们就不再对您说什么了。还有，如果认为空性的空性存在于色等事物所存在的基础上，因为除了色等事物所存在之外，不可能存在所破相的事物。那么，那样的非实有空性要么会变成与事物的自性和体性相同，要么色等事物所存在的也会变得和它一样，变成非实有各自的自性空性的空性，而那也是您不希望的。如同拉辛死了，祭祀不会在没死的上面成立一样，以和自己相异的法，以其他的法空，法自己怎么会变成空性呢？如果变成那样，世尊说了二十空性之外，就只需要说他空，不需要说自空了，因为他空性具有自空的意义。那么，色等上面，色等的空性，您自己也认为存在还是不存在呢？如果和不喜好不观察（338a）就随顺缘起而说的中观派一起谈论，那么，为了消除恐惧，因为需要的缘故，在不了义中说什么存在不存在都可以。如果和喜好随顺缘起而说的中观派一起谈论，那么就说什么存在不存在都远离戏论。中观派观察的时候，因为什么都不成立的缘故，什么都不想不说，如同在海市蜃楼显现为水的时候，水和以它空性的空性两者中，它的空性在那水上，存在和不存在的名称，任何符合意义的都无法说一样。还有，如果变成非实有的空性，存在于色等其他事物上，是有矛盾还是有关系？因为有矛盾，所以无法成立存在。如果存在于关系中，那么必须存在一体和从它产生关系中的任何一种，因为对于非实有，一体和从它产生关系任何一个都不行。还有，色等事物依靠
English
So, what is the emptiness of emptiness? Because both the rabbit's horn and the object of negation of the sign are equally non-existent in the knowable. If you assert, then the rabbit's horn would be the nature of form, and the emptiness of the rabbit's horn would be the dharma nature of form. Because of that assertion. If you also assert that, then from now on we will not say anything to you about this. Also, if you think that the emptiness of emptiness exists on the basis of the existence of things like form, because other than the existence of things like form, it is impossible for the object of negation of the sign to exist. Then, such a non-existent emptiness would either become the same as the nature and essence of things, or the existence of things like form would also become the same as it, becoming the emptiness of the self-nature of non-existence, and that is also what you do not want. Just as the sacrifice cannot be established on the undead when Lhas Byin dies, how can the dharma itself become emptiness by being empty of other dharmas that are different from itself? If it becomes like that, then the Buddha would only need to teach other-emptiness besides the twenty emptinesses, and there would be no need to teach self-emptiness, because other-emptiness has the meaning of self-emptiness. So, do you yourself think that the emptiness of form etc. exists or does not exist on form etc.? If you talk with the Madhyamikas who do not like to examine (338a) and speak in accordance with dependent origination, then, in order to dispel fear, they will say that anything exists or does not exist in the provisional meaning because of necessity. If you talk with the Madhyamikas who like to speak in accordance with dependent origination, then they will say that anything that exists or does not exist is free from elaboration. When the Madhyamikas examine, they do not think or say anything because nothing is established, just as when a mirage appears as water, among the water and the emptiness of its emptiness, its emptiness is on that water, and it is impossible to say any meaningful term of existence or non-existence. Also, if the emptiness that has become non-existent exists on other things like form, is it contradictory or related? Because it is contradictory, it cannot be established as existing. If it exists in a relationship, then it must exist in either a single entity or a relationship arising from it, because neither a single entity nor a relationship arising from it is possible for non-existence. Also, things like form depend on