Chinese
这是为了必须去除戏论。例如，《般若精要总集》中说，以二取分离的理智，成立无实之后，就说那本身远离四边戏论。第三，所破是什么：在破除第一个边之后，破除分别念所执著的对境本身。《四百论》中说：“由分别所见，即是束缚，故于此处，应予破除。”《释量论》中说：“此境若无害，则不能舍弃。”就像所说的那样。以四边作为基础，在其上破除真实，这是破除第一个边的理路，就像以自性空性，对空性之所依的法，破除真实一样。第四，如此破除的必要是：为了获得大乘菩提，必须圆满证悟无相，并且必须清楚且广大地证悟法无我，因此是为了那个目的。龙树说：“若未证悟无相，汝说无有解脱。因此在大乘中，对此圆满开示。”《入行论释》中说：“为了清楚地阐释法无我，宣说大乘也是合理的，因为想要宣说广大地阐释。声闻乘中，只是简略地表示法无我而已。”这是因为这样说的缘故。第二，驳斥那些不能破除的邪分别念，分为两部分：陈述前方的观点，以及驳斥它。第一，那些自诩为后来的中观派，对教法的精要——离戏论，极端憎恨的人说：如此破除真实之后，对破除真实的空性显现执著，是不能破除的，因为这是证悟对境之实相的智慧，而且中观派所破的只是真实，而且它没有执著真实，如果先前破除了真实，之后也必须破除它，那么先前的智慧就成了有损害的，而之后的智慧则成了无止境的。那么，“非有非无，非有非无，亦非二者之自体。”等等，对境之实相远离一切四边戏论，而且智慧不能执著任何四边。
English
This is because it is necessary to remove elaborations. For example, in the Essence of Wisdom Collection, it is said that after establishing the absence of truth with the reasoning of the separation of dualistic consciousness, it is said that that itself is free from the elaborations of the four extremes. Third, what is being refuted: After refuting the first extreme, refuting the object itself that is clung to by conceptual thought. The Four Hundred says: 'What is seen by conceptual thought is bondage, therefore it should be refuted here.' And the Commentary on Valid Cognition says: 'Without refuting this object, it is not possible to abandon it.' It is like what is said. Taking the four extremes as a basis and refuting truth on top of that is the reasoning for refuting the first extreme, just as refuting truth with emptiness of inherent existence for the object of emptiness. Fourth, the need for such refutation is: In order to attain the great vehicle's enlightenment, it is necessary to fully realize the absence of characteristics, and it is necessary to clearly and extensively realize the selflessness of phenomena, so it is for that purpose. Nagarjuna said: 'If you do not realize the absence of characteristics, you say there is no liberation. Therefore, in the Great Vehicle, it is fully taught.' The Commentary on the Entrance says: 'It is also reasonable to teach the Great Vehicle in order to clearly explain the selflessness of phenomena, because it is intended to express a broad explanation. In the Hearer's Vehicle, the selflessness of phenomena is only briefly indicated.' This is because it is said so. Second, refuting the wrong conceptions that cannot be refuted is divided into two parts: stating the former position and refuting it. First, those who pretend to be later Madhyamikas, who hate the essence of the teachings, the freedom from elaboration, say: After refuting truth in this way, clinging to the emptiness that refutes truth is not refutable, because it is the wisdom that realizes the reality of the object, and the object of refutation of the Madhyamikas is only truth, and it does not cling to truth, and if the former has refuted truth, and the latter must also refute it, then the former wisdom becomes harmful, and the latter becomes endless. Then, 'Neither existent nor non-existent, neither both nor neither, nor the nature of both.' etc., the reality of the object is free from all four elaborations, and wisdom cannot grasp any of the four.