English
If the other party admits emptiness by true establishment, then you must admit that the ultimate is not empty by the ultimate. If the ultimate is not empty by the ultimate, then will it become not empty by true establishment? It is the same for vases and so on. Therefore, our ultimate, although not empty by the ultimate, is empty by the conventional, let alone the false illusion being established as true, we admit that all conventional dual appearances are emptiness. If this is not considered understanding emptiness, then all conventional dual appearances are not emptiness, and the exaggerated conceptual realm of true establishment is blocked, how can one understand emptiness? Just as one believes that even if true establishment is blocked, true non-existence will not be blocked, prevented, or be unpreventable. Similarly, even if conventional illusions are blocked, the non-false ultimate cannot be blocked, prevented, or be unpreventable. In short, because you did not block the conventional with the reasoning that establishes true non-existence, the basis of emptiness has become conventional, therefore admitting that the ultimate is not empty by the conventional. We admit that the basis of emptiness is the ultimate, empty by the conventional, so the basis of emptiness is the non-affirming negation of true non-existence, and the thorough emptiness that is empty of true establishment, and the thorough emptiness of conventional appearances that are not empty from their own side, empty of exaggerated true establishment. The basis of emptiness, appearance and emptiness, never exist in a mixed way, and from the perspective of samsara and nirvana being equal, the two truths are never possible. Therefore, elaborate on these and grasp the key points. According to our view, both the object emptiness and the subject wisdom are ultimate, and in the true sense, appearance and emptiness, the two truths, are not different, so the ultimate dharmadhatu is not thorough emptiness, but is not empty of indivisible form and wisdom, and abides as the spontaneously accomplished nature body from the beginning. Your ultimate non-affirming negation thorough emptiness is a non-entity separated from the appearance of terms, and even a small part of form and wisdom never existed before, does not exist later, and will never exist. Although the conventional separated from it exists, it does not help emptiness, because each will never mix and cannot mix. In this way, the root of samsara is the clinging to truth, and its object does not exist, so both the object and the subject of this kind are conventional illusions.
Chinese
萨。按照你的宗义，世俗谛必须安立为唯有真实成立和真实执着。名言的显现都不是胜义谛，因为不是空性；也不是世俗谛，因为不是不欺骗的显现或者胜义谛观察的堪忍观察，虽然不是真实成立的堪忍观察，但是是名言自性不空的堪忍观察。这样一来，一切无实和名言都变成胜义谛了。唯有真实成立变成世俗谛了。真实执着是实有的，所以和瓶子等相同。境真实显现和有境真实执着二者是处所显现不相符的世俗谛。无实和执着无实二者都是处所显现相符的胜义谛，可以这样认为。不显现二取的境和有境二者都安立为胜义谛，而存在二取则安立为世俗谛的宗义不能承认，因为如果瓶子等自性不空，则有二取显现和二取执着的心的处所显现相符，变成境和有境了。不显现二取和没有二取执着则变成处所显现不相符的错乱识了。总之，按照你的宗义，以理智所破的唯有真实成立，所以修习空性所断除的唯有真实显现和真实执着，除此之外什么也不是，那么，圣者的等持中，以真实成立空性的所有世俗谛为什么不显现？如果说，虽然不是理智所破，但是被道所遮止而不显现，那么，像遮眼物一样的道，将存在的实物变得不显现，而显现不存在的意义，那么，为什么存在的不见，而见到不存在的呢？这种黑暗的相貌是什么呢？像这样说道的道真是太稀奇了。按照我们的宗义，当现量见到胜义谛的时候，因为是境和有境二者不显现的无分别智慧的行境，所以在其中怎么会有真实显现和真实执着呢？怎么会有戏论的境和戏论呢？像这样安立为胜义谛之后，将不欺骗的胜义谛作为空性的基础，然后说，对于它来说，错乱显现的轮回是空性，是世俗谛一方的境和有境。胜义谛的自性虽然超离戏论，但是在成就胜义谛的时候，胜义谛是什么，以及区分世俗谛之后，什么是错乱和不欺骗的。
English
Sa. According to your system, conventional truth must be established as only true existence and true grasping. Appearances of terms are not ultimate truth because they are not emptiness; nor are they conventional truth because they are not non-deceptive appearances or able to withstand ultimate analysis. Although they are not able to withstand analysis as truly existent, they are able to withstand analysis as terms that are not empty in themselves. If that is the case, then all non-existence and terms become ultimate truth. Only true existence becomes conventional truth. True grasping is substantially existent, so it is similar to a vase, etc. Objectively appearing as true and subjectively grasping as true are conventional truths with dissimilar appearances. Non-existence and grasping at non-existence are both considered ultimate truths with similar appearances. It is not reasonable to accept a system that establishes both object and subject as ultimate truth when there is no dualistic appearance, and establishes the existence of duality as conventional truth. If vases, etc., are not empty in themselves, then the mind with dualistic appearance and dualistic grasping becomes object and subject with similar appearances. The absence of dualistic appearance and dualistic grasping becomes a deluded consciousness with dissimilar appearances. In short, according to your system, since the only object to be refuted by reasoning is true existence, and the only things to be abandoned by meditating on emptiness are true appearance and true grasping, and nothing else, then why do all conventional truths that are empty of true existence not appear in the equipoise of noble disciples? If you say that although they are not objects to be refuted by reasoning, they are obstructed by the path and do not appear, then that path, like a screen, makes existing things disappear and makes non-existent things appear. Why is it that what exists is not seen, and what does not exist is seen? What is this kind of darkness? Such a path as this is amazing! According to our system, when ultimate truth is directly seen, it is the object of non-conceptual wisdom in which there is no appearance of object and subject. How can there be true appearance and true grasping in that? How can there be objects of elaboration and elaboration? After establishing such as ultimate truth, taking that non-deceptive ultimate truth as the basis of emptiness, then saying that for it, the cycle of deluded appearances is emptiness, is the object and subject of the conventional side. Although the nature of ultimate truth transcends elaboration, when accomplishing ultimate truth, what is ultimate truth, and after distinguishing conventional truth, what is delusion and non-deception.
Chinese
如果不这样承认，那又该如何呢？ 因为自性本空，一切法皆离戏论， 即使遮止戏论，并且强调无遮与能立， 也只能承认自性本空这一观点。 仅仅抓住这些词语，作为宗派的庇护。 如果这样执持，从胜义的角度来看， 那些“非空”的承认， 即使不情愿，也只能以承认无实的方式， 不得不这样承认，没有自主权。 如果说胜义自性非空， 那么胜义就成立为胜义本身，这样最好。 如果说瓶子自性非空， 那么一切法都非空，就会导致常的见解， 并且会建立如同石女儿的空性一样，是无实有的， 执著二边的常断见的基础。 胜义是常、是真、是非空， 如果以名言量成立，并且了解这一点， 就能把握住所有道的功德，并且遮止执著常断 边见的恶见。 不断是常的见解，不常是断的见解， 凡是存在都不是有边，凡是不存在都不是无边。 这是雪域智者们的观点。 同样，如果以名言量善加分析， 常与无常、空与非空， 真与非真、有与无的差别， 就能以智慧分辨，这些都不是边。 对于究竟胜义的智慧来说， 没有有无等戏论， 这是所有讲说他空的智者和成就者的观点。 你却承认，在分析胜义的分析面前， 存在着无实的戏论。 既然在分析胜义的分析面前存在， 并且在观察胜义的境中存在任何事物， 如果说这些不是空性，是真实成立的， 并且如此执著，那有什么矛盾呢？ 如果在观察无实的时候，无实变成空性， 那么和没有观察无实有什么区别呢？ 如果认为无实也是空性， 那么观察瓶子等为空性，又有什么不可以呢？ 瓶子等虽然以真而空，但自性并非空性。 如果空性，那么瓶子等在名言中就不存在了， 那么在观察胜义的时候，胜义不是空性， 那又为什么不会变得和它一样呢？ 总而言之，如果问胜义自性非空是什么意思？ 我会说，胜义谛不是胜义谛所空的意义。 对此，有人会说，如果是这样，那么胜义就会变成真实成立的。如果瓶子不是瓶子所空，那么瓶子就会变成真实成立的。
English
If we don't accept it this way, what else can we do? Since all phenomena are free from elaboration due to their lack of inherent existence, Even if we block elaborations and emphasize negation and affirmation, We can only accept the view that there is no inherent existence. Just grasping these words as a refuge of tenets. If we hold it like that, from the perspective of ultimate reality itself, Those acknowledgments of "non-emptiness," Even unwillingly, we have to acknowledge the absence of truth, In that way, we have no freedom not to acknowledge it. If we say that ultimate reality itself is not empty, Then it is good that ultimate reality is established as ultimate reality itself. If we say that a pot itself is not empty, Then all phenomena are not empty, leading to the view of permanence, And it establishes the basis for the extreme views of permanence and annihilation, holding onto the emptiness of a barren woman's child as something non-existent. Ultimate reality is permanent, true, and not empty, If it is established by valid conventional cognition and we understand that, It can hold all the qualities of the path and prevent the bad view of clinging to the extremes of permanence and annihilation. Non-cessation is not a view of permanence, non-permanence is not a view of annihilation. Whatever exists is not an extreme of existence, whatever does not exist is not an extreme of non-existence. This is the view held by those renowned as scholars in the Land of Snows. Likewise, if we analyze well with valid conventional cognition, The differences between permanence and impermanence, emptiness and non-emptiness, Truth and untruth, existence and non-existence, We can realize with wisdom that these are not extremes. For the wisdom that analyzes ultimate reality, There are no elaborations such as existence and non-existence, This is the view held by all the accomplished scholars who speak of other-emptiness. You also acknowledge that in the face of analyzing ultimate reality, There are elaborations of the absence of truth. Since it exists in the face of analyzing ultimate reality, And whatever exists in the realm of seeing ultimate reality, What contradiction is there in saying that these are not empty, are truly established, And are fixated upon in that way? If the absence of truth becomes empty in the face of seeing the absence of truth, Then what difference is there from not seeing the absence of truth? If you think that the absence of truth is also seen as empty, Then what is wrong with seeing pots and so on as empty? Pots and so on are empty of truth, but their own nature is not empty. If they were empty, then pots and so on would not exist conventionally, Then when observing ultimate reality, ultimate reality is not empty, Why would it not become the same as that? In short, if you ask what is the meaning of saying that ultimate reality itself is not empty? I would say that it means that ultimate truth is not empty of ultimate truth. To that, someone might say, if that is the case, then ultimate reality would become truly established. If a pot is not empty of a pot, then the pot would become truly established.