English
Therefore, it is through the forbearance of suffering that one enters the four stages of the peak of the path of seeing. Thus, the meaning of "having" here is that the four subsequent attainments of the bodhisattva's path of joining actually possess the four explicitly stated accomplishments; the four samadhis implicitly possess the four negating discriminations, hence the term "having." The word "relying" also appears twice, for whenever one practices either samadhi or subsequent attainment, one relies on the very nature that it possesses. Now, how does one understand the nature of accomplishment discriminations as being possessed in subsequent attainment? In the subsequent attainment of warmth, one clings to the objects to be abandoned, manifestly fixating on the Dharma of all afflictions, or the path and fruit of the Lesser Vehicle. In the state of subsequent attainment of the peak, one manifestly fixates on the objects to be taken, clinging to the Dharma of complete purification, or the path and fruit of the Bodhisattva. In the state of subsequent attainment of forbearance, when not seized by the view of samadhi, with compassion focused on sentient beings, one manifestly fixates on the person as a substantially existent object, as the enjoyer. In the subsequent attainment of the supreme Dharma, with compassion focused on the Dharma, one manifestly fixates on the person as a imputedly existent object, as the enjoyer. The reasons for these will become clear in the section "When the warm ones focus on this." The way in which samadhi possesses negating discriminations is that in the samadhi of warmth, when realizing that the objects of all afflictions are without inherent existence, one does not transcend clinging to them, because it is a discrimination that mixes sound and meaning. That clinging itself also depends on the subsequent path, being a discrimination to be abandoned. In general, the view of the Middle Way is that all clinging to existence, clinging to non-existence, clinging to truth, and clinging to non-truth must be negated, and ultimately one needs something without any clinging. Nowadays, negating the view of freedom from elaboration, they say that the object to be negated by the Middle Way is only truth, and that clinging to emptiness need not be negated, which has already been negated elsewhere. In short, the sutras say that acting with emptiness and acting with non-emptiness are both acting with signs. Here, too, when negating the manifest clinging to the sixteen aspects such as impermanence, one must also negate the manifest clinging to emptiness and selflessness, otherwise it will contradict most sutras and treatises. Nature
Chinese
如果具备了，就说这是道位（指加行道）所说的分别念。对于说这里所说的分别念是加行道，则不予承认。因为这里所说的分别念必须从显现执着的角度安立，而加行道必须从遮止显现执着的角度安立。如果这样，那么本体相同岂不是相违吗？如果这样问，那么在暖位等持的阶段，当遮止对痛苦的谛实、无常的显现执着时，由于没有超出认为不是无常的显现执着，所以遮止了对无常的显现执着，以及显现执着不是无常，这二者在心的本体上是相同的。那时，遮止对无常的显现执着的那部分是加行道，但不是这里所说的分别念。显现执着不是无常的那部分是这里所说的分别念，但不安立为加行道，所以没有相违。同样，先前的心所执着的对境，之后的心遮止它，因此对于空和不空等的执着也必须全部遮止，所以应当将所有所缘行相都运用上去，哪里能说完呢？如果知道了这个要点，就能理解将破除分别念和加行道等持安立为本体相同的方式，以及分别念遮止一个戏论，却执着另一个，因此必须以轮番遮止的方式遮止一切的方式，以及瑜伽现量一下子遮止所有戏论的方式，这些要点都汇集为一个要点，否则即使寻找无数劫也无法理解。第二，分析什么是破除分别念和建立分别念：有些人认为只有建立分别念，有些人认为只有破除分别念，还有一些译师上师认为四种分别念必须具备加行道的本体，因此第三种是破除分别念，其他三种是建立分别念，等等，虽然有多种说法，但根本的意图是这样的：总的来说，对于其他三种分别念，经部直接显示了破除分别念，而建立分别念是间接显示的。而在论典中，则与经部相反地显示，因此论典的直接显示只有建立分别念，因为它是缘于九种境、四种境、三十六种境，具有能取和所取的行相，所以只能是建立分别念。经部的直接显示和论典的间接显示是破除分别念。
English
If it is possessed, it is said that this is the conceptualization taught in the path of joining. However, it is not accepted that the conceptualization taught here is the path of joining. This is because the conceptualization taught here must be established from the aspect of manifest clinging, while the path of joining must be established from the aspect of blocking manifest clinging. If so, then is it contradictory that they are the same entity? If so, then in the state of heat-equalized equipoise, when manifest clinging to the truth of suffering, impermanence, is blocked, since it does not go beyond the manifest clinging that thinks it is not impermanent, therefore blocking manifest clinging to impermanence, and manifest clinging to not being impermanent, these two are the same entity in the mind. At that time, the aspect of blocking manifest clinging to impermanence is the path of joining, but it is not the conceptualization taught here. The aspect of manifest clinging to not being impermanent is the conceptualization taught here, but it is not established as the path of joining, so there is no contradiction. Similarly, whatever object the previous mind clung to, the later mind blocks it, so all clinging to emptiness and non-emptiness, etc., must also be blocked, so all aspects of the object should be applied, how can it be finished by speaking? If you know this key point, you can understand the way to establish the negation of conceptualization and the equipoise of the path of joining as the same entity, and the way that conceptualization blocks one elaboration but clings to another, so everything must be blocked by alternating blocking, and the way that the direct perception of yoga blocks all elaborations at once, these key points are gathered into one key point, otherwise it will not be understood even if you search for countless eons. Second, analyzing what is negation of conceptualization and establishment of conceptualization: Some people think that there is only establishment of conceptualization, some people think that there is only negation of conceptualization, and some translator lamas think that the four conceptualizations must possess the entity of the path of joining, so the third is negation of conceptualization, and the other three are establishment of conceptualization, etc., although there are many sayings, the fundamental intention is like this: In general, for the other three conceptualizations, the sutras directly show the negation of conceptualization, and the establishment of conceptualization is shown indirectly. In the treatises, it is shown in the opposite way from the sutras, so the direct teaching of the treatises is only the establishment of conceptualization, because it is based on the nine objects, four objects, and thirty-six objects, and has the aspect of grasper and grasped, so it can only be the establishment of conceptualization. The direct teaching of the sutras and the indirect teaching of the treatises are the negation of conceptualization.
Chinese
是遣除分别，因为是缘于三十六境而现为无有能取所取自性的行相，因为是遣除执著之行相的缘故。即使在承认遣除分别之时，如执著瓶子无实有为实有的心识等，也不承许为遣除分别，因为是成立执著之行相的缘故。总之，如果成立执著之行相的现相是所断的话，那么它的反面，遣除之行相的现相也必须是所断，因为必须遮止有无、是与非等一切二取戏论的缘故。此乃宣说中观见之所有经论一致出现，然于天生之头上戴着遍计之帽子者们看来，似乎未曾见到。第三、观察何者为见断与修断：直接开示的四种成立分别唯是见断，于《现观庄严论》中，现在当说与分别完全相应者。其中，见道的违品是四种分别，如何呢？所取之分别有两种，即依于事物自性者，与依于对治品者。说“仅”字是为了显明差别之义。能取之分别有两种，即具有人以实有存在的所依，与具有士夫以假立存在的所依。如是所说之故。菩萨的加行道四种等持皆是见断之断除，是分为对治品的二种加行道，并且以直接开示的四种分别与等持，和直接违背执著之要点，也成立为见断，之前已经说过了。那么，《现观庄严论》中将要阐述的能取与所取之分别，是见道与修道所断除的，以及《现观庄严论释》中，见道与修道所断除的能取与所取之四种分别将要阐述之理，和注释中所出现之说相违吗？答：没有相违，虽然直接开示是见断，但间接开示的遣除之行相的四种分别，见道不能断除，因此对无有实执的法
English
It is a negation of conceptualization, because it appears as devoid of the nature of grasper and grasped while focusing on the thirty-six objects. It is because it has the aspect of negating clinging. Even when admitting negation conceptualization, minds such as those that cling to the unreal as real, like a pot being unreal, are not admitted as negation conceptualization, because they have the aspect of establishing clinging. In short, if the appearance of establishing clinging is to be abandoned, then its opposite, the appearance of negating clinging, must also be abandoned, because all elaborations of dualistic grasping, such as existence and non-existence, being and non-being, must be stopped. This is what all the sutras and treatises that explain the Madhyamaka view unanimously state, but it seems that those who wear the hat of imputation on their innate heads have not seen it. Third, examining which is to be abandoned by seeing and which is to be abandoned by meditation: The four affirmative conceptualizations that are directly taught are only to be abandoned by seeing. In the Abhisamayalankara, it says, 'Now, that which is perfectly associated with conceptualization will be explained.' Among these, the opponents of the path of seeing are the four conceptualizations. How so? There are two conceptualizations of the grasped: those that rely on the object itself and those that rely on the antidote. The word 'only' is mentioned to clarify the distinction. There are two conceptualizations of the grasper: those that have a basis in a person existing as a substance and those that have a basis in a person existing as an imputation. This is because it is said. All four meditative stabilizations of the bodhisattva's path of joining are paths of joining that divide the abandonment of what is to be abandoned by seeing into two, the antidote, and also because the four conceptualizations that are directly taught are in direct contradiction with meditative stabilization and clinging. It is established as something to be abandoned by seeing, as has been said before. So, is there a contradiction with the way the conceptualizations of the grasper and the grasped, which will be explained in the Abhisamayalankara, are to be abandoned by the path of seeing and meditation, and with the way the four conceptualizations of the grasper and the grasped, which are to be abandoned by seeing and meditation, will be explained in the commentary, and with what appears in the commentary? Answer: There is no contradiction. Although the direct teaching is to be abandoned by seeing, the four conceptualizations of the aspect of negation that are indirectly taught cannot be abandoned by the path of seeing, so for phenomena without clinging to truth,