Chinese
经中云：“欲于声闻地修学者，亦应修学般若波罗蜜多。”等等，如是三乘一切菩提之因，即证悟无实之智慧，彼由理聚等善为抉择。彼时，为使自之论典能容纳三类有情，故未明显宣说证悟之差别。后者则将般若经之所诠摄为八现观，而阐述大乘不共之道之体相。彼时，为使自之论典能引导所化唯入大乘道，故于每一道之阶段，皆宣说一异于小乘之证悟。总而言之，声闻、独觉证悟蕴无自性，慈氏与龙树二者皆许，然未证悟无相、无缘、离戏，二者亦皆许。仅是名言不同，并不会导致见解相异，名言乃因应需要而安立，而需要亦已述讫。若谓于他人作过失之指摘乃是依止 टीका 而作，故不应认为与此相违，此乃仅为我于此世间之行境故。于“彼乃由相而缘之门”之段落中，有说：声闻之见道无间道，法性，是远离果母之基识，以其不善于修证果母之方便之基识故，以其执基道果三者为相之基识故。若谓如是，则彼法性，应不能真实断除自份补特伽罗我执之种子，以其执基道果三者为相之识故。若许尔，则不应以真实断除彼之方式，引导自相续之有情至二涅槃，以其许如是故。又，彼法性，应成声义混杂之分别念，且应成具有能立之相状，以其执基道果三者为相之识故。不应许如是，以其为瑜伽现量故，且为以补特伽罗无我执持方式为境之智故。
English
The sutra says, "Those who wish to train in the Hearer's Ground should also train in the Perfection of Wisdom." And so forth, like that, the wisdom that realizes the absence of inherent existence, which is the cause of enlightenment for all three vehicles, is well ascertained by collections of reasoning and so on. At that time, in order to make one's own treatise accessible to all three types of beings, the differences in realization were not clearly explained. The latter condenses the subject matter of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra into eight realizations and explains the system of the uncommon path of the Great Vehicle. At that time, in order to guide disciples solely onto the path of the Great Vehicle through one's own treatise, at each stage of the path, each realization that is distinct from the Lesser Vehicle is explained. In short, both Maitreya and Nagarjuna accept that Hearers and Solitary Realizers realize the aggregates as devoid of inherent existence, and both also accept that they do not realize signlessness, aimlessness, and freedom from elaboration. Disagreement in terminology alone does not lead to disagreement in view, as terminology is established according to need, and the need has already been stated. If it is said that criticizing others' faults is done based on the Ṭīkā, one should not think that it contradicts this, as this is solely the realm of my activity in this world. In the section "That is through the door of focusing on signs," some say: The Hearer's Path of Seeing's immediate path, the Dharmata, is the basis-consciousness that is far from the Fruition-Mother, because it is the basis-consciousness that is not skilled in the means of accomplishing the Fruition-Mother, because it is the basis-consciousness that grasps the basis, path, and fruition as signs. If so, then that Dharmata should not be able to directly abandon the seeds of the self-grasping of the individual of its own share, because it is a consciousness that grasps the basis, path, and fruition as signs. If you accept that, then it should not lead beings of its own continuum to the two Nirvanas by directly abandoning it, because you accept that. Furthermore, that Dharmata should be a conceptual thought that mixes sound and meaning, and it should have the aspect of an establisher, because it is a consciousness that grasps the basis, path, and fruition as signs. One should not accept that, because it is a yogic direct perception, and because it is a wisdom that takes as its object the way of grasping the absence of self of the individual.