Chinese
对此似乎并不认可。即使月亮显得真实，也是相对于世间而言，月亮具有作用，但这不能作为先前宗派的作用之义。同样，认为颠倒有两种不同的差别，在先前宗派的早期注释中，世俗谛分为真实和非真实两种，即“于此”等等。在后期宗派的早期注释中也说，世俗谛显示为两种，并且在后期注释中，虽然在具有清晰的认知方面相似，但确定了如其所显现般在作用上是欺骗和不欺骗的，因此世间人将水等和阳焰等理解为真实和非真实。实际上，二者在自性空性上是相同的。如其所显现般存在着。在作用上欺骗和不欺骗也如其所称许般，这也是因为自性空性的缘故。如是说。那位论师的追随者寂护说：“未经观察唯一令人愉悦，生灭法者，作用之能力，了知自性为世俗。”如是说，认为显示了真实的世俗谛。在其注释中说：“所见和所欲之事物，仅仅是缘起，因为无法观察，所以是真实的世俗谛。”如是说。这似乎也是先前颠倒差别的意义，因为将安立为真实的世俗谛，并将远离观察作为特点来解释。莲花戒说：“有些在《中观光明论》中造论者超越了名声，认为凡是对事物进行常等自性的臆测，那就是颠倒的世俗谛，因为那甚至在名声中也不存在。凡是与缘起相符的臆测，例如，‘此无我或有情，此法具有因’，那样的就是真实的世俗谛。”如是说。这似乎也是先前真实与颠倒的第一个差别的意义，因此，自续派的三者都将第一个差别视为中观自宗。
English
This does not seem to be accepted. Even if the moon appears to be real, it is in relation to the world, and the moon has a function, but this cannot be taken as the meaning of the function of the previous school. Similarly, the view that there are two different distinctions of the mistaken, in the early commentary of the previous school, conventional truth is divided into two types, true and untrue, namely "in this" etc. In the early commentary of the later school, it is also said that conventional truth is shown as two types, and in the later commentary, although similar in having clear cognition, it is determined that as it appears, it is deceiving and not deceiving in its function, therefore worldly people understand water etc. and mirages etc. as true and untrue. In reality, the two are the same in their self-nature emptiness. It exists as it appears. Deceiving and not deceiving in function is also as it is praised, and this is also because of self-nature emptiness. Thus it is said. The follower of that teacher, Śāntarakṣita, said: "Unexamined, solitary, delightful, those with the nature of arising and ceasing, the abilities of function, knowing their self-nature as conventional." Thus he said, considering that the true conventional truth is shown. In his commentary it is said: "The objects seen and desired, are merely dependent arising, because they cannot be examined, therefore they are the true conventional truth." Thus it is said. This also seems to be the meaning of the previous distinction of the mistaken, because it establishes the true conventional truth, and explains being free from examination as a characteristic. Kamalaśīla said: "Some who compose treatises in the *Madhyamakāloka* go beyond fame, thinking that whatever speculation is made on things as having the nature of permanence etc., that is the mistaken conventional truth, because that does not even exist in fame. Whatever speculation is in accordance with dependent arising, for example, 'Here there is no self or sentient being, this dharma has a cause', that is the true conventional truth." Thus he said. This also seems to be the meaning of the first distinction of true and mistaken, therefore, all three of the Svātantrika schools consider the first distinction as the Madhyamaka's own system.
Chinese
看来的确如此。第二方面分二：一是论述圣天论师是如何解释的；二是论述觉窝杰（阿底峡）师徒是如何解释的。第一方面分三：确定分类的基础并分为二种的方式；阐述如此分类的必要；考察对于这二者的意义和名相自宗是否承认。第一，在《入行论》中，将由虚假所见而获得的诸法自性安立为世俗谛，此世俗谛是这二者的分类基础，因此在《中观根本慧论》中，“诸佛依二谛，为众生说法”之时所说的二谛分类方式，与此处的二谛分类方式略有不同，前者是圆满正等觉佛陀为所化众生开示证悟实相之方便与方便生之二谛，因此其世俗谛唯是世间世俗谛，而《入行论》中，仅安立了成为正确与颠倒二者分类基础的世俗谛。对此分为正确与颠倒二者，由“虚妄所见亦分为二”等一颂来阐述。确定正确世俗与颠倒世俗，由“无害诸根识”等一颂来阐述。详细阐述颠倒世俗，由“无知睡眠扰，邪见外道徒”等一颂来阐述。如此分为二者的必要，由“如患翳膜者，见毛发星等”等一颂来阐述。详细阐述正确世俗，由“以痴为自性，能障蔽真实”等三句来阐述。第二，那么《根本慧论》中，在分二谛之时，既然已经阐述了世间世俗谛，为何在《入行论》中，还要阐述观待于世间本身而分为真与非真的世俗谛呢？当以理智确定圣者所见的胜义谛之时，必须对未经观察的心识所见的生进行四边分别，从而破除生，此时若认为在世间名言中见到生会造成妨害，那是因为观待于圣者所见而见到
English
It seems so indeed. The second aspect has two parts: how the master Chandrakirti explained it, and how Lord Atiśa and his followers explained it. The first aspect has three parts: identifying the basis of division and the manner of dividing it into two; explaining the necessity of dividing it in this way; and examining whether or not to accept the meaning and terminology of these two in one's own system. First, in the "Entering the Middle Way," the conventional truth is established as the nature of things obtained by false perception, and this conventional truth is the basis of division for these two. Therefore, in the "Root Verses on the Middle Way," the way of dividing the two truths taught when it says, "The Buddhas teach the Dharma based on two truths," is slightly different from the way of dividing the two truths here. The former is the two truths taught by the perfectly enlightened Buddha to those to be tamed as a means and means-born to realize suchness, so its conventional truth is only the worldly conventional truth. In the "Entering the Middle Way," only the conventional truth that is the basis of division for the two, correct and incorrect, is established. Dividing it into two, correct and incorrect, is explained by one verse, "False perception is also considered to be of two kinds." Identifying the correct conventional and the incorrect conventional is explained by one verse, "By the six unimpaired sense faculties." Explaining the incorrect conventional in detail is explained by one verse, "Those disturbed by the sleep of ignorance, the non-Buddhists." The necessity of dividing it into two in this way is explained by one verse, "Like those with cataracts in their eyes, seeing hairs, stars, etc." Explaining the correct conventional in detail is explained by three lines, "Because ignorance is its nature, it obscures reality." Second, then, in the "Root Wisdom," when dividing the two truths, since the worldly conventional truth has already been explained, why is it necessary in the "Entering the Middle Way" to explain the conventional truth that is divided into true and untrue in relation to the world itself? When the ultimate truth seen by the noble ones is determined by reason, it is necessary to analyze the arising seen by the unexamined mind into four extremes and thereby eliminate arising. At that time, if it is thought that seeing arising in worldly terms will cause harm, it is because it is seen in relation to the vision of the noble ones.
Tibetan
ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་ཡིན་པས་མི་གནོད་དེ། དཔེར་ན་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལའང་དབང་པོ་སྐྱོན་ལྡན་གྱི་ཤེས་པའི་མཐོང་བས་དབང་པོ་སྐྱོན་མེད་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པས་མཐོང་བ་ལ་མི་གནོད་པ་བཞིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་བསྟན་པའི་ཆེད་དུ་སྟེ། མིག་ནི་རབ་རིབ་ཅན་གྱིས་དམིགས་པ་ཡིས། །ཞེས་པའི་འགྲེལ་པར། གང་གི་ཚེ་སྐྱེ་བ་དགག་པ་འདི་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་ཡིན་པ་དེའི་ཚེ་ཇི་ལྟར་རབ་རིབ་ཅན་རྣམས་ཀྱི་སྐྲ་ལ་སོགས་པའི་ངོ་བོ་ལ་དམིགས་པས་རབ་རིབ་མེད་པའི་ཤེས་པ་ལ་མི་གནོད་པ་དེ་བཞིན་དུ་ཟག་པ་མེད་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་དང་བྲལ་བ་སོ་སོ་སྐྱེ་བོ་རྣམས་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པས་ཀྱང་གཟིགས་པ་ཟག་པ་མེད་པ་ལ་གནོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་པས་རྣམ་པ་དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་ཡུལ་ལ་འཇིག་རྟེན་གྱིས་གནོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་སོ། །གསུམ་པ་ནི། བོད་སྔ་རབས་པ་རྣམས་ཐལ་རང་གཉིས་ཆར་གྱི་ལུགས་ལ་ཡང་དག་ཀུན་རྫོབ་དང་། ལོག་པའི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཀྱི་ཐ་སྙད་ཁྱད་མེད་དུ་ཁས་བླངས་ནས་འཆད་པ་ལ་ཕྱི་མ་ཁ་ཅིག་ན་རེ། ཐལ་འགྱུར་བའི་ལུགས་ལ་ཡང་དག་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཁས་མི་ལེན་ཏེ། ཡང་དག་ཡིན་ན་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཡིན་པ་འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར། དེས་ན་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་དེ་གཉིས་ཁས་བླངས་པ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་དང་། ཁ་ཅིག་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ཀྱང་དེ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ཐ་སྙད་ཁས་མི་ལེན་གྱི་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལྟོས་བདེན་པ་དང་། འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལྟོས་ལོག་པའི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཞེས་པ་ཙམ་ཞིག་ཁས་ལེན་པ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་སྨྲའོ། །དེ་དག་ནི་གནད་མ་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ་འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་བདེན་པ་ཙམ་ལ་ཡང་དག་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཅེས་པའི་ཐ་སྙད་བྱས་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་ཡང་དག་དང་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཀྱི་གཞི་མཐུན་ལ་ཡང་དག་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཀྱི་ཐ་སྙད་བྱས་པ་མ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གཞན་དུ་ན་ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པའང་རང་ལུགས་ལ་ཁས་མི་ལེན་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཡིན་ན་བདེན་པ་འགལ་བའི་ཕྱིར་དེ་ཡང་འདོད་ན། འདི་ལས་གཞན་ན་ཆོས་འདི་ནི། །ཞེས་སོགས་ཀྱི་འགྲེལ་པར། རང་ལུགས་ཀྱི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་དངོས་པོར་སྨྲ་བ་དང་། ཐུན་མོང་མ་ཡིན་པར་གསུངས་པ་དང་འགལ་ལོ། །གཞན་ཡང་མཐོང་བ་བརྫུན་པ་ལ་དབང་པོ་གསལ་དང་དབང་པོ་སྐྱོན་ལྡན་གྱི་ཤེས་པ་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས་སུ་ཕྱེ་བར་རང་ལུགས་ལ་ཁས་མི་ལེན་པར་འགྱུར་ཏེ། ཁས་བླངས་དེའི་ཕྱིར། དེའང་འདོད་ན། མཐོང་བ་བརྫུན་པ་ཡིན་ན། དབང་པོ་གསལ་ལྡན་གྱི་ཤེས་པ་ཡིན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །ལུགས་ཕྱི་མའང་མི་འཐད་དེ། འཇིག་རྟེན་ཉིད་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་བདེན་པ་དང་ལོག་པའི་རྣམ་གཞག་ཁས་ལེན་ན། དེ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་ཐ་སྙད་ཁས་ལེན་དགོ
Chinese
因为是颠倒，所以没有损害。例如，对于世间本身，有官觉缺陷的意识所见，不损害官觉无缺陷的意识所见，就像这样。为了显示这个，在“眼睛被眼翳者所见”的注释中说：当否定生的时候，这个特别的时候，就像眼翳者见到头发等自性，不损害无眼翳的意识一样，没有漏的智慧和远离的异生凡夫们的意识所见，也不损害没有漏的，因此对于那样的境，世间没有损害。第三，以前的藏人，在应成派和自续派两种宗义中，对于正确世俗和错误世俗的名称，没有差别地承认并解释，但后来的一些人说：应成派的宗义不承认正确世俗，因为如果是正确，那么是世俗就相违。因此，是依靠世间本身而承认那两个的。有些人说：即使依靠世间本身，也不承认那两个的名称，只是承认世间本身所依的真实和世间本身所依的错误世俗而已。这样说。那些是没有领悟要点，是对于仅仅依靠世间本身的真实，才安立了正确世俗的名称，而不是对于正确和世俗的共同基础，安立正确世俗的名称。否则，世俗谛在自己的宗义中也不承认了，因为如果是世俗，那么是真实就相违，如果也这样认为，那么在“此之外无有此法”等的注释中，与自己宗义的世俗谛的安立是实事宗，以及不共的说法相违。另外，对于虚假的所见，分为官觉清晰和官觉有缺陷的意识两种，在自己的宗义中也不承认了，因为承认了那个的缘故。如果也这样认为，如果是虚假的所见，那么就成为官觉清晰的意识了。后面的宗义也不合理，如果依靠世间本身而承认真实和虚假的安立，那么就必须承认那两个的名称。
English
Because it is inverted, it does not harm. For example, even for the world itself, what is seen by the consciousness with defective sense organs does not harm what is seen by the consciousness with non-defective sense organs, just like that. To show this, in the commentary on "The eye is aimed by the one with cataracts," it says: When the negation of birth is particularly this time, just as those with cataracts aim at the nature of hair and so on, it does not harm the consciousness without cataracts, similarly, the consciousness of ordinary beings who are separated from the wisdom without outflows also does not harm the seeing without outflows, so the world does not harm such an object. Third, the ancient Tibetans, in both the Prasangika and Svatantrika systems, accepted and explained the terms "correct conventional truth" and "false conventional truth" without distinction, but some later ones said: The Prasangika system does not accept correct conventional truth, because if it is correct, then it is contradictory to be conventional. Therefore, it is by relying on the world itself that these two are accepted. Some say: Even relying on the world itself, they do not accept the terms for these two, but only accept that the world itself relies on truth and the world itself relies on false conventional truth. That's what they say. Those are not understanding the point, it is only by relying on the world itself that the term "correct conventional truth" is applied to mere truth, but not that the term "correct conventional truth" is applied to the common basis of correct and conventional. Otherwise, conventional truth would not be accepted in one's own system, because if it is conventional, then it is contradictory to be true, and if that is also accepted, then in the commentary on "There is no other dharma than this," etc., it contradicts the establishment of conventional truth in one's own system as a proponent of entities and the uncommon statement. Furthermore, dividing false appearances into two types, clear sense perception and sense perception with defective sense organs, would not be accepted in one's own system, because of accepting that. If that is also accepted, then if it is a false appearance, then it would become a clear sense perception. The latter system is also unreasonable, if one accepts the establishment of truth and falsehood by relying on the world itself, then one must accept the terms for those two.