English
If asked: How does one obtain a meritorious result, or not obtain it? It is not certain. Because, regarding the relics of the Buddha, whether living or having passed into nirvana, the merit of the two offerings is the same. From the benefits of circumambulating a stupa: Whether one makes offerings to the living Buddha or to the relics of the one who has passed into nirvana, as long as the mind is equally devout, there is no difference in merit. Because it is said so in the scriptures. Whether it is a mindless, conventional truth Buddha, or a mindful, ultimate truth, true Buddha, the arising of results from offering to them is proven by scripture. For example, just as you believe that offering to a mindful and true Buddha will produce a true meritorious result, similarly, we believe that offering to a false Buddha will produce a false merit, and there is no fault in this. Here, "mindless" means without the conceptualization of grasper and grasped. As the Great Commentary says: "The Bhagavan who is free from the conventional mind." Second, regarding establishing the understanding of ultimate emptiness as the path, there are two aspects of debate and response. The first aspect is: The Sravakas, Vaibhashikas, and other schools believe that by becoming accustomed to directly seeing the four truths with their aspects of impermanence, etc., one will be liberated from karma and afflictions. What is the use of seeing emptiness, where nothing is established? There is no need. The second aspect is the answer, which is divided into three parts: briefly explaining with scripture, explaining in detail with debate and response, and summarizing the common essence. First, why is it necessary to realize emptiness? Because, in the Prajnaparamita Sutra, it says that without the wisdom that realizes the emptiness of the path, there is no fruit of enlightenment. For those who have a concept of things, there is no opportunity to practice the Prajnaparamita. From "there is no abandonment of afflictions connected by habitual tendencies" to "Those who wish to become a Hearer of the Sugata, those who wish to become a Pratyekabuddha, and those who wish to become a Dharma King, cannot attain it without relying on this forbearance." The second part is divided into three aspects: refuting the unestablished view, establishing the tenets of the Mahayana, and establishing the ultimate truth as the path. The first is: For the Hearers, there are emanations and becoming great Bodhi.
Chinese
我，寂静行持唯一者和，具有增上慢者共有四种，后面的那种是没有见到真理，对自己的宗派显现执着。他们说，大乘不是佛语，因此它没有成立为可信的教证。第二种情况分为两种：询问特殊的原因和驳斥那个回答。第一种是：询问你们的《长阿含经》等这些是如何成立为可信的？第二种分为两种：驳斥教证的和佛语的原因。第一种分为两种：驳斥是和不是的原因。第一种是：《长阿含经》等是可以相信的，因为对于敌方和己方双方来说，这都成立为佛语。如果这样说，那么，这双方的意义是指你和另外一个吗？或者是指任何两个？如果按照第一种情况，那么，在你没有进入宗派的时候，《长阿含经》等就不会成为佛语，因为那时对你来说，这没有成立为佛语。如果说，是因为从圣者传承没有间断地听闻等而相信的，那么，凭借什么因缘你相信那个教证，那个相信的因缘对于大乘来说也是相同的，因为有圣者传承没有间断等。如果按照第二种情况，因为承认任何其他的两个，如果那里是真实的，那么，胜论等外道的论典也会成为可信的教证。第二种是：如果说，大乘是有诤论的，因此不是可信的教证。那么，对于你的总的教证，外道们和对于其他个别的教证，自宗和他宗都有诤论，因此会成为应舍弃的。第二种是：哪种语言等的三颂。智生说，这些是别人加入的，不是论师的论典。有些人认为是，有些论典里写在这里，大部分在下面出现，但如果讲解，就取在这里讲解。这样，一些部派说，哪种语言显示心之学，就包含在经藏里；显示戒律之学，就在律藏里显现；显示智慧之学，就不违背论藏，并且认为是佛所说。如果说，大乘里没有那些，因此不是佛语。那么，《解深密经》等大乘的经典大部分也比
English
I, the one who practices tranquility, and the one with pride, there are four types, the latter being those who have not seen the truth and are manifestly attached to their own tenets. They say, "The Mahayana is not the Buddha's word, therefore it is not established as a reliable source of scripture." The second is divided into two: questioning the specific reason and refuting that answer. The first is: "How are your Agama Sutras, etc., established as reliable?" The second is divided into two: refuting the reasons for scripture and the Buddha's word. The first is divided into two: refuting the reasons for being and not being. The first is: "The Agama Sutras, etc., are reliable because this is established as the Buddha's word for both the opponent and the proponent." If so, does the meaning of both refer to you and another, or to any two? According to the first case, when you have not entered the tenets, the Agama Sutras, etc., will not become the Buddha's word, because at that time it is not established as the Buddha's word for you. If it is said that it is believed because of hearing from the unbroken lineage of saints, etc., then by what cause do you believe in that scripture? That cause of belief is the same for the Mahayana, because there is an unbroken lineage of saints, etc. According to the second case, because it admits any other two, if that is true, then the treatises of the Tirthikas, such as the Vaisheshika, will also become reliable scriptures. The second is: If it is said that the Mahayana is contentious, therefore it is not a reliable scripture. Then, for your general scripture, the Tirthikas and for other specific scriptures, both your own and other schools have contentions, therefore it will become something to be abandoned. The second is: the three shlokas beginning with "Which speech." Jnanasrijnana says that these were added by others and are not the teacher's treatises. Some think they are, some treatises write them here, and most appear below, but if explaining, they should be taken here and explained. Thus, some schools say, "Which speech shows the training of the mind, it is included in the Sutra Pitaka; shows the training of discipline, it appears in the Vinaya Pitaka; shows the training of wisdom, it does not contradict the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and it is considered to be spoken by the Buddha." If it is said that the Mahayana does not have those, therefore it is not the Buddha's word. Then, the Samdhinirmocana Sutra and most of the Mahayana sutras are more
Chinese
既然您说这三者是由导师所宣说的，那么，它们与你们的经部相同，难道不是应该被视为圣言吗？如果你们不这样认为，那才是应该的。如果某些大乘经典是圣言，但像《般若经》等所有法都宣说无自性，那么，由于这些经典不具备圣言的三种特征，所以不是圣言，是这样认为吗？《经庄严论》中说：“为了进入自己的经，为了显现自己的律，为了甚深和广大的缘故，与法性不相违背。”就像这样，它们也具备这三种特征，只是您自己没有认识到罢了。如果您因为自己没有完全认识到圣言的特征，就像《般若经》一样，就认为所有的大乘经典都不是圣言，这样就会产生过失。那么，像《解深密经》等与您的经部和圣言的特征完全相同的一部经典，为什么不能证明所有的大乘经典都是佛陀所说的呢？因为理由相同。如果这些大乘的教证和《般若经》等是圣言，那么大迦叶等理应证悟，但他们也没有证悟，所以不是圣言，是这样认为吗？大乘经典的语句，其所表达的内容，即使是大迦叶等也无法彻底理解，因为它们非常深奥，您不理解这一点，所以谁会认为它们不应该被视为圣言呢？《经庄严论》中说：“对于具有各种各样不可思议身体的，因为愚昧，而一定要确定吗？”或者，大迦叶等没有彻底理解大乘经典的意义，您没有认识到这一点，因为这没有成立，所以谁会以此为理由认为大乘不应该被视为圣言呢？因为理由没有成立，所以理由所要证明的结论也不会成立。第三部分有三点：没有修习胜义谛的过患，修习胜义谛的利益，以及总结要义。第一部分有三点：不舍弃烦恼就不能获得涅槃，即使舍弃了也不能获得涅槃，以及心识止息后还会再次产生。第一点是：如果教法住世的根本是比丘阿罗汉，那么，心识有执著，也就是没有证悟空性的人，要成为比丘阿罗汉也是很困难的，因为他们不能从根本上断除烦恼。因为他们不能断除痛苦，所以也不能获得涅槃。
English
Since you say that these three are taught by the Teacher, then, they are the same as your Sutra Pitaka, shouldn't they be considered as the words of the Buddha? If you don't think so, then it is appropriate to think so. If some Mahayana scriptures are the words of the Buddha, but like the Prajnaparamita Sutra, all dharmas are taught to be without self-nature, then, since these scriptures do not have the three characteristics of the words of the Buddha, they are not the words of the Buddha, is that what you think? The Ornament of the Sutras says: "In order to enter one's own Sutra, in order to manifest one's own Vinaya, for the sake of profundity and vastness, there is no contradiction with the nature of Dharma." Like this, they also have these three characteristics, but you yourself have not realized it. If you, because you have not fully realized the characteristics of the words of the Buddha, like the Prajnaparamita Sutra, think that all the Mahayana scriptures are not the words of the Buddha, then this will lead to faults. Then, why can't a scripture like the Samdhinirmocana Sutra, which is completely the same as your Sutra Pitaka and the characteristics of the words of the Buddha, prove that all the Mahayana scriptures are spoken by the Buddha? Because the reason is the same. If these Mahayana teachings and the Prajnaparamita Sutra, etc., are the words of the Buddha, then Mahakasyapa and others should realize them, but they have not realized them either, so they are not the words of the Buddha, is that what you think? The words of the Mahayana scriptures, the content they express, even Mahakasyapa and others cannot fully understand, because they are very profound, you do not understand this, so who would think that they should not be considered as the words of the Buddha? The Ornament of the Sutras says: "For those who have various kinds of immeasurable bodies, because of ignorance, must they be determined?" Or, Mahakasyapa and others did not fully understand the meaning of the Mahayana scriptures, you have not realized this, because this has not been established, so who would use this as a reason to think that Mahayana should not be considered as the words of the Buddha? Because the reason has not been established, the conclusion that the reason wants to prove will not be established. The third part has three points: the faults of not meditating on the ultimate truth, the benefits of meditating on the ultimate truth, and summarizing the main points. The first part has three points: not abandoning afflictions cannot lead to Nirvana, even if they are abandoned, Nirvana cannot be attained, and even if the mind ceases, it will arise again. The first point is: if the root of the Dharma remaining in the world is the Bhikshu Arhat, then, those whose minds have attachments, that is, those who have not realized emptiness, it is also difficult for them to become Bhikshu Arhats, because they cannot completely eliminate afflictions from the root. Because they cannot eliminate suffering, they cannot attain Nirvana.
Chinese
不会停留在中间而获得。（涅槃） 第二种情况是：即使没有证悟那样的空性，仅仅通过修习蕴等无常，以及人无我，断除了烦恼，就能从痛苦中解脱吗？ 如果这样，那么获得有余依的阿罗汉，在那之后立即就会变成没有痛苦的状态，因为断除了烦恼的缘故。 如果你这样认为，那么对于那些阿罗汉来说，虽然没有烦恼，但是像目犍连之子等一些人，因为过去业力的力量，仍然会见到痛苦，这一点经文中已经清楚地说明了。 如果说，虽然暂时在断除烦恼之后不会立即从痛苦中解脱，但是当舍弃寿命的行蕴时，就会解脱，因为可以确定他们没有了导致再次受生的因——对蕴的贪执。 如果这样说，那么就像他们有对所知普遍愚昧的非烦恼性的无明一样，为什么不能有这种非烦恼性的对蕴的贪执呢？ 因为由伴随着实执的感受作为因，必定会产生贪爱。而感受对于那些阿罗汉来说也是存在的。 第三种情况是：任何与证悟空性相分离的心，都是具有对境的心，因此会停留在某个所缘境上并产生执着。即使这种执着暂时停止显现，也会再次产生，就像在无想定的状态下，心暂时停止，但之后又会再次产生一样。 因此，想要使一切痛苦都止息的人，应当修习空性。 第二部分分为两点。 第一点是成就两个目标： 当自己证悟空性时，会对那些因不明白空性而产生痛苦的人们生起慈悲心，为了他们的利益，通过不执着轮回的安乐和不畏惧痛苦这两种极端，以安住于轮回的方式，成就不可估量的利他事业，这就是修习空性的果报。 第二点是断除两种障碍： 证得一切智的障碍是烦恼障，而对治所知障的黑暗的对治法就是修习空性，因此，想要迅速获得一切智的人，为什么不修习空性呢？ 必须修习。 第三点是： 因为证悟和没有证悟空性有这样的差别，所以空性