English
If someone asks, isn't it said that one can see the truth? Because other similarities are obscured by delusion, even if the minds of ordinary worldly people cannot immediately recognize things like vases, those yogis who understand the way of conventional truth can immediately see and ascertain this, therefore yoga is conventional truth, so there is no fault of not being included in the two truths. Relative to the minds of ordinary worldly people who cling to permanence, not seeing the momentary is actually seeing the truth, because they see the truth of convention. If it were not so, but relative to the conventional truth of yogis or the world, there is no difference between seeing or not seeing the truth, then the yogi who is accustomed to practicing ugliness meditation, who certainly sees and recognizes that a woman's body is impure, would also be harmed by the worldly view that women are pure, because there is no difference between these two minds in seeing or not seeing the truth. Even so, seeing impurity etc. harms the clinging to purity etc., but it never harms in return. Furthermore, if all phenomena are like illusions and unreal, then the Buddha is also like an illusion, so how can offering to him produce great merit? Offering illusory offerings to the illusory, that is, the illusory Victorious Buddhas, produces illusory merit, just as you think that offering real offerings to a real Buddha produces real merit. There is only a difference between whether merit and the Buddha are truly existent, but there is no difference in whether merit arises or not. If sentient beings are like illusions, then just as illusory horses and cattle do not reappear after death, how can sentient beings reasonably be reborn elsewhere after death? As long as the causes and conditions of medicine, mantras, etc. are assembled, the appearance of illusory horses, cattle, etc. will also arise, similarly, as long as the causes and conditions of karma and afflictions are assembled, the birth of sentient beings will also continue to arise without interruption, therefore these two only differ in whether the assembly of causes and conditions is complete or not, but there is no difference in whether they are truly existent or not. Even so,
Chinese
如果认为，众生因为轮回无始无终，所以持续久远，而幻化没有像众生一样的，因此两者不相同。那么，将二者视为相同，并不是指在时间长短等方面完全相同，而是指无论时间长短，显现却空无自性的方面相同。因此，如果长时间寻找，怎么能说众生是真实存在的呢？并非如此。如果众生是真实存在的，那么幻化中也有长时间显现的事物，而众生也有短暂显现的情况，这样一来，幻化就变成真实存在，而众生则变成不真实存在了。此外，如果众生与幻化相同，那么就像对幻化之人造成伤害一样，给他们食物和衣服等带来利益，也不会变成善业；杀害他们等造成损害，也不会变成罪业。如果这样认为，即使对幻化之人施加利益，或者以杀害之心驱使而杀害等造成损害，但因为他们没有像幻化一样感受苦乐的觉知，所以仅仅是自己的我执心所造的罪过，并不会产生杀生等实际的罪业。因为对于具有幻化般觉知的众生，施加利益和损害才会产生福德和罪业。因此，虽然有有心和无心的区别，但在真假方面没有区别。如果认为，因为众生有心，所以众生和幻化的真假不同。即使众生有心，但心本身就像幻化一样，怎么能因此而变成真实的呢？例如，幻化的咒语和物品等没有产生觉知的能力，所以幻化的心是不会产生的，而众生的因具有产生觉知的能力。如果从具有产生觉知能力的事物中产生，那就是真实的。不能认为另一种是不真实的。因为从各种不同的因缘中产生的幻化，也只是显现出各种不同的形态而已。依靠一个因缘就能产生内外一切果实的能力，在世间任何地方都是不存在的。因此，由于因的差别不同，
English
If one thinks that sentient beings are different because samsara is beginningless and endless, thus lasting for a long time, while illusion does not have anything like that, then considering the two as the same does not mean that they are the same in terms of duration, etc. Rather, whether it is long or short, they are considered the same in terms of appearing but being empty of inherent existence. Therefore, if one searches for a long time, how can one say that sentient beings are truly existent? It is not so. If sentient beings were truly existent, then there would also be illusions that appear for a long time, and sentient beings would also appear briefly for a short time. In that case, illusion would become truly existent, and sentient beings would become non-existent. Furthermore, if sentient beings are the same as illusion, then just as causing harm to an illusory person, giving them food and clothing, etc., would not become virtuous deeds; killing them, etc., causing harm, would not become sinful deeds. If one thinks like this, even if one bestows benefits on an illusory person, or causes harm by inciting a murderous intent and killing, etc., because they do not have the awareness to experience happiness and suffering like illusion, it is merely the fault of one's own egoistic mind. Actual sins such as killing do not arise. Because for sentient beings who possess illusion-like awareness, bestowing benefits and causing harm will generate merit and sin. Therefore, although there is a difference between having mind and not having mind, there is no difference in terms of truth and falsehood. If one thinks that because sentient beings have mind, the truth and falsehood of sentient beings and illusion are different, even though sentient beings have mind, that mind itself is like illusion, so how can it become true because of that? For example, the mantras and substances of illusion do not have the power to generate awareness, so the mind of illusion does not arise, but the cause of sentient beings has the power to generate awareness. If something arises from something that has the power to generate awareness, then that is true. One cannot consider the other to be untrue. Because the illusion that arises from various different causes and conditions also appears in various different forms. The ability to generate all inner and outer fruits from a single cause and condition does not exist anywhere in the world. Therefore, due to the difference in the causes,
Chinese
虽然果的差别显现不同，但真假没有差别。例如，幻化的马和牛，显现有无角的差别，但真假没有差别。还有，执持涅槃为实有者说：如果按照您说自性空，那么如果轮回的一切法在胜义谛中自性涅槃，而具有生老病死等相的轮回是世俗，既然如此，涅槃和轮回就会成为同体，因此，即使获得佛的果位，也会再次轮回，因为不是断尽轮回而获得涅槃，而是轮回本身就是涅槃，因此，为了获得佛果而修持菩提行有什么用呢？没有必要啊。不是这样的，因为自性清净的涅槃和，暂时离垢的涅槃有差别。如此，如果果的各个事物显现的因缘没有断绝，不仅是轮回，连幻化也是，幻化的显现也不会停止转变，如果因缘断绝，世俗中也不会产生，更何况胜义谛呢？因此，轮回中出生的因，无明及其种子，被证悟无我的智慧从根拔除的人们，不会再轮回，因为没有了因。佛陀在世间降生等不是轮回所摄，而是愿望和三摩地等一同作为助缘，从一切相的智慧的力量中，虽然示现如眼花般的行为，但从法界中动摇是永远不可能的。第三，唯识宗真实存在者说：如此，显现为外内事物的这些，如同声音、闪电和梦境的显现一样，虽然没有成立外境，但从内在习气的差别中，成熟为处所、事物、身体的各种显现，因此，虽然没有外境，但心是存在的，因为在梦中也成立了对恐惧等的体验执持，这样想。你们中观派认为，当迷惑时，不仅迷惑的对境外境不存在，而且迷惑的心也不存在吗？
English
Although the differences in results appear to be distinct, there is no difference between truth and falsehood. For example, in the appearance of illusory horses and cattle, there is a difference in the appearance of having or not having horns, but there is no difference between truth and falsehood. Furthermore, those who hold Nirvana to be real say: If, as you say, there is no inherent existence, then if all phenomena of Samsara are inherently in Nirvana in the ultimate truth, and Samsara, which has the characteristics of birth, aging, sickness, and death, is conventional, then Nirvana and Samsara would become the same entity. Therefore, even if one attains the state of Buddhahood, one would still return to Samsara, because it is not by exhausting Samsara that one attains Nirvana, but Samsara itself is Nirvana. Therefore, what is the use of practicing the conduct of Bodhi in order to attain Buddhahood? There is no need. It is not like that, because there is a difference between Nirvana that is naturally pure and Nirvana that is temporarily free from defilements. Thus, if the causes for the appearance of individual things as results are not interrupted, not only Samsara, but even illusion, the appearance of illusion, will not cease to change. If the causes are interrupted, they will not arise even in the conventional sense, let alone in the ultimate truth. Therefore, those who have the cause of birth in Samsara, ignorance and its seeds, uprooted by the wisdom that realizes selflessness, will not return to Samsara, because there is no cause. The birth of the Buddha in the world, etc., is not included in Samsara, but wishes and Samadhi, etc., together as auxiliary causes, from the power of the wisdom of all aspects, although showing actions like optical illusions, it is never possible to waver from the realm of Dharma. Third, the Mind-Only proponents of true existence say: Thus, these appearances of external and internal things, like the appearances of sounds, lightning, and dreams, although there is no establishment of external objects, from the differences in internal habitual tendencies, they mature into various appearances of places, things, and bodies. Therefore, although there are no external objects, the mind exists, because even in dreams, the experience of holding onto fear, etc., is established, so they think. According to you Madhyamikas, when there is delusion, not only does the object of delusion, the external object, not exist, but also the mind of delusion does not exist?
Chinese
如果有人说，如幻的对境被什么所缘呢？因为它是无心的。暂且允许你低头（承认）。当唯识宗的你，也认为如幻的对境实际上并不存在时，即使那时你认为有心，又缘什么对境呢？因为如果对境和有境二者都不存在，就不可能缘。对方说：如果按照我们的观点，对境并非完全不存在，而是像梦中的马和牛一样，存在一个作为对境的所缘，它与实在的物质不同。那是什么呢？显现为对境自性的所取之相，就是心本身，而不是实物。如果心本身就是如幻对境的所缘，那么什么对境被什么有境所见呢？因为二者是一体的，所以无法看见。如何看不见呢？世间一切的怙主，即怙主佛陀薄伽梵也说过，心不能自己看见自己。例如，剑刃不能自己斩断自己，手指尖不能自己触碰自己，还有，有斧头的人不能自己骑在自己的肩膀上，同样，心也不能自己看见自己。如是说：在《顶髻宝经》中说：例如，剑刃不能斩断剑刃，手指尖不能触碰手指尖，同样，心也不能看见心。这里的要点是：只要心被认为是真实存在的，那么认为真实存在的心会分解成无分的两部分——能见和所见。当它显现为对境时，那不是它自己；如果不显现，就不适合作为所取。因此，从胜义谛的角度理解，所谓的自证也只是假立的，并非真实。唯识宗的人说：心自己不能认识自己，这是为什么呢？例如，灯能照亮瓶子等其他事物，也能清楚地照亮作为照明之因的其他事物。灯自己照亮自己，这只是一个名称，并非真实。因为灯自己
English
If someone says, what is the object of focus for something that is like an illusion, since it is without mind? For a moment, let's allow you to bow your head (in agreement). When you, a Mind-Only proponent, also believe that the object, which is like an illusion, does not actually exist, then even if you assume there is mind, what object is focused on? Because if neither the object nor the subject exists, it is impossible to focus. The opponent says: If according to our view, the object is not completely non-existent, but like horses and cows in a dream, there is an object of focus that is different from the substantial matter. What is that? The aspect of the apprehended, which appears as the nature of the object, is mind itself, not matter. If the mind itself is the object of focus, which is like an illusion, then what object is seen by what subject? Because the two are one, they cannot be seen. How is it not seen? The protector of all the world, the Protector Buddha Bhagavan, has also said that the mind does not see itself. For example, how can the edge of a sword not cut itself, the tip of a finger not touch itself, and a person with an axe cannot ride on his own shoulders, similarly, the mind does not see itself. It is also said: In the Sutra of the Jewel in the Crown, it says: For example, just as the edge of a sword cannot cut the edge of the sword, and the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of a finger, similarly, the mind cannot see the mind. The point here is: as long as the mind is considered to be truly existent, the belief that the truly existent mind can be divided into two parts, the seer and the seen, is undermined. When it appears as an object, it is not itself; if it does not appear, it is not suitable as an object of apprehension. Therefore, understanding from the ultimate perspective, the so-called self-awareness is merely a designation, not truly existent. The Mind-Only proponent says: Why is it that the mind cannot know itself? For example, just as a lamp illuminates other things like a vase, it also clearly illuminates other causes of illumination. The statement that a lamp illuminates itself is just a term, not truly so. Because the lamp itself