Chinese
定解宝灯。 定解宝灯。 定解宝灯安住于此。心中充满疑惑之网者，开启智慧金刚之明灯，将深刻的定解融入心中，我亦敬信那能见善道的眼睛。唉呀，对于深奥的实相，促成结合的定解珍宝，因为没有你，这个世间，被幻象之网所覆盖而愚昧。对于基、道、果的诸法，以定解使信念正直，听闻使生起信心，二者如道路及其影像。奇妙佛法的月亮之名声，与善说之语的光芒同时，在广阔的能仁教法天道中升起，彻底摧毁了疑惑的黑暗。以名言理性的量，取舍进退不错误，特别是对于教法和导师，这是获得信心的唯一之门。量之论典和实相之义，确立胜义智慧的，无垢澄清之量，乃大乘中观之二者。善加修习的双眼，睁大而示现导师所指之路，不依赖他者，真实进入者，值得赞叹。如是思考之仙人，突然一位宗喀巴派的人，为了进行辩论，如此提出了七个问题。擅长重复他人之语有何用？对于自己的辨别能力却加以隐藏。请迅速回答这些问题，如同亲眼见到内在的辨别智慧般清晰。即使广泛听闻，拉长知识的缰绳，如同井水般深奥的佛法之水，如果未曾体验，仍然渴望名声，如同低劣种姓爱慕王妃。见解是破斥还是成立？声闻和缘觉的二种无我证悟了吗？有无止住执着？是观察后禅修，还是安住后禅修？二谛之中哪个更重要？一人所见共同显现应如何看待？是否承认中观？如是，对于从空性出发的，深奥的提问，在没有教证和辩论的情况下，请以理性成立的答案来回答。以辩论的词句编织的荆棘之矛，即使被百万摧毁也无法穿透，对于大德们愚昧的难点，说
English
Certainty Precious Lamp. Certainty Precious Lamp. Certainty Precious Lamp abides here. For those whose minds are enveloped by the web of doubt, the lamp of Manjushri's Vajra that opens and instills profound certainty into the heart, I also have faith in that eye that sees the good path. Alas, for the profound reality, the precious jewel of certainty that facilitates union, because without you, this world is covered and deluded by the net of illusion. For the dharmas of base, path, and fruit, with certainty, faith becomes upright, and hearing generates faith, the two are like the path and its reflection. The fame of the wondrous Dharma's moon, simultaneous with the light of well-spoken words, rises in the vast heavenly path of the Sage's teachings, completely destroying the darkness of doubt. With the measure of conventional reasoning, taking and abandoning, entering and retreating are not mistaken, especially for the teachings and the teacher, this is the only door to gaining faith. The treatises of valid cognition and the meaning of reality, establishing the ultimate wisdom, the stainless clarifying measure, are the two aspects of the Great Vehicle Madhyamaka. The pair of eyes that are well-trained, wide open, show the path taught by the teacher, without relying on others, those who truly enter are praised. Thus, to the sage who contemplates, suddenly a Gelugpa person, in order to debate, asked these seven questions. What is the use of being skilled in repeating the words of others? While hiding one's own ability to discern. Please quickly answer these questions, as clear as seeing the inner wisdom with one's own eyes. Even if one widely hears and lengthens the reins of knowledge, the water of Dharma, as deep as well water, if not yet experienced, still desires fame, like a low-caste person longing for a queen. Is the view refuting or establishing? Have the two selflessnesses of Hearers and Solitary Realizers been realized? Is there or is there not a cessation of clinging? Is one meditating after examining, or meditating after abiding? Which of the two truths is more important? How should the common appearance seen by one person be viewed? Is there or is there not an acceptance of Madhyamaka? Thus, for the profound questions that originate from emptiness, without scriptural authority or debate, please answer with a rationally established answer. The thorn-like spear woven from the words of debate, even if destroyed by millions, cannot be penetrated, for the difficult points of the great ones' ignorance, say
Chinese
舌如闪电般伸展，如是受智慧的催动，语言之风，即使是微弱的摇动，也使仙人的心，如末劫之风撼动山岳般。最终，在持守一时无语的寂静之后，唉，肩负着百千重困难的重担，再三地思索，智慧锐利的火焰，即使是接连不断地猛烈燃烧，也无法在此无瑕的境界中成就，那么，天生具有的勇气和智慧变得迟钝，长久修习的重担也未曾担负，卑劣的我又怎么能说呢？以悲切的力量呼唤妙音天。那时，心想这一定是他的力量，心中如黎明时分的景象一般，稍微获得勇气的机会，便如实地以正理思择而说。格鲁派的见解说是无遮遣，其他宗派说是非遮遣。旧译派的宗风是什么呢？在双运大智慧的面前，说“无”所遮遣，遮遣之后剩下的，仅仅是“无”，以及说“非”，遮遣之后又安立了什么其他的法？这二者仅仅是意识的分别，实际上两者都不承认。是远离遮遣和安立二者的，超越意识的原始法性。仅仅思索空性的方式，如果问，那就是无遮遣。印度圣地的圣者月称，以及藏地的绒宗·曲桑二者，以相同的密意和声音，成就了本来清净的大空性。此法本初即清净，或者，本来就无自性，因此，对于二谛都不生，说“无”又有什么可犹豫的呢？柱子本初即清净，其后没有丝毫的不空。如果没有遮遣柱子为“无”，又怎么会有“非柱子”呢？遮遣柱子之后的空性，以及其后留下的显现，空与不空成为双运，如同搓捻线绳一般不可能。柱子不以柱子而空，法性以柱子而空，如是安立空性的基础之后，就是他空，词句和他义的他空这二者。唉呀，如果它不以它而空，那么，空性的基础就会以不空而残留。色不是以色而空，这与经文的意义以及正理相违背。柱子以柱子的真实成立这二者，如果是一，则互相遮遣，一个遮遣则全部遮遣。如果是他，遮遣了非柱子的真实成立，但是柱子，又以什么而不空呢？
English
The tongue extends like lightning. Thus, urged by wisdom, the wind of speech, even with a slight stir, moves the heart of the sage like a mountain shaken by the wind of the final age. Eventually, after holding the vow of silence for a while, alas, bearing the burden of hundreds of thousands of difficulties, repeatedly contemplating, the sharp fire of wisdom, even if continuously blazing intensely, cannot accomplish this in a flawless realm. Then, the innate courage and wisdom become dull, and the burden of long practice has not been taken up. How can a lowly one like me speak? Calling upon Manjushri with the force of longing. At that time, thinking it was due to his power, in the mind, like the appearance of dawn, having gained a slight opportunity for courage, I spoke after examining it with reason according to the meaning of the good words. The Gelug view is said to be non-affirming negation (med dgag). Others say it is affirming negation (ma yin dgag). What is the Nyingma tradition? In the face of the great wisdom of union, what is negated by saying "non-existence" (med ces dgag bya) and what remains after the negation, is merely "non-existence" (med rkyang), and what other dharma is posited by saying "not" (ma yin) after the negation? These two are merely mental distinctions. In reality, neither is accepted. It is the original nature of reality that is beyond mind, separated from both negation and affirmation. If one thinks only of the way of emptiness, if asked, it is indeed non-affirming negation. The noble Chandrakirti of India, and Rongzom Chözang of Tibet, with one intention and one voice, accomplished the great emptiness of primordial purity (ka dag). This dharma is pure from the beginning (ka nas dag pa), or because it is originally without self-nature, therefore, since the two truths are not born, what hesitation is there in saying "non-existent" (med ces brjod)? A pillar is pure from the beginning (ka nas dag pa), there is not even a little non-emptiness remaining. If one does not negate the pillar as "non-existent" (med ces ma bkag na), then what is "not a pillar" (ka ba min)? The emptiness after negating the pillar, and the appearance remaining thereafter, the union of emptiness and non-emptiness is impossible, like twisting a thread. The pillar is not empty by the pillar, and the nature of reality is empty by the pillar, thus, after establishing the basis of emptiness, it is other-emptiness (gzhan stong), the other-emptiness of words and meaning. Alas, if it is not empty by it, then the basis of emptiness will remain as non-empty. Form is not empty by form, this contradicts the meaning of the scriptures and reason. The two true establishments of the pillar by the pillar, if they are one, they negate each other, and if one is negated, all are negated. If it is other, even if the true establishment of non-pillar is negated, by what is the pillar not empty?
Chinese
可堪审查之译文。 因从未有真实成立之故，若不需一与异，虽无真实成立，然于凡夫前，以瓶执为真实之故，不空瓶之外，谁会成立为真实？ 所破之显现确定了。 真实成立等之差别为何？ 将所破结合而显示，虽于自续论中著名，然于胜义谛观察之境，结合彼有何必要？ 若空则于世俗中，亦如柱子不存在般思虑，虽以语病之疑虑而作此，然于此语病之相违极大。 仅于世俗中柱子，说为存在尚且不容许，彼说彼不空为何意？ 若说彼二者意义相同，非也，说柱子存在与，于柱子柱子存在，不相似，后者于能依所依，如意义上已承诺般。 若胜义中柱子不可得，柱子为何不以柱子空？ 世俗柱子以柱子，两次说出为不解名相。 若自不以自空，自有之同时以他空，若所破于他处不存在，以自不空承诺相违。 大体而言以他空者，定能成立为空性，然于马未成立有牛，马定为空性于何处成立？ 见马者于牛，有何利益又有何损害？ 是故不空涅槃与，轮回亦于法与法性中，不容许，显空双运与，有寂平等此中无。 水月非月亮也，以虚空月亮空与水月自，若显现为双运则可矣，双运之证悟谁亦可取。 牛非马众皆知，牛显现为现量见，证悟彼稀有大哉，大自在如是说。 是故于自宗中，若观察水月则水月自，稍许亦不可得如无般，水月显现为现量圆满。 虽为无遮然能显现，空与有于凡夫心中，虽相违然于此处现量中，此双运稀有哉，以稀有之语赞叹智者。 若从空性之角度衡量，不空稍许亦无有之故，虽可说为无之一边，然于无之无式未失坏般，显现不灭尽之自性中。
English
A translation that can withstand scrutiny. Since there has never been true establishment, if one and different are not needed, although there is no true establishment, yet in the eyes of ordinary beings, because they grasp a pot as true, outside of the non-empty pot, who would establish something as true? The appearance of what is to be refuted is certain. What is the difference between true establishment and so on? To show by combining what is to be refuted, although it is famous in the Svatantrika school, yet in the realm of ultimate investigation, what need is there to combine it? If it is empty, then even in the relative, one thinks as if a pillar does not exist, although this is done out of fear of verbal fallacy, the contradiction of verbal fallacy is great in this. Merely in the relative, a pillar, it is not permissible to say that it exists, what does it mean to say that it is not empty? If you say that these two have the same meaning, it is not so, saying that a pillar exists and, in a pillar a pillar exists, are not similar, the latter is like an admission of meaning in the dependent and the depended upon. If a pillar is not found in the ultimate, why is a pillar not empty by a pillar? The relative pillar by a pillar, saying it twice is ignorance of terminology. If self is not empty by self, while self exists, it is empty by other, if what is to be refuted does not exist elsewhere, it contradicts the promise that it is not empty by self. In general, by that which is empty by other, it is not necessarily established that it is emptiness, although a cow is not established in a horse, where is it established that the horse is empty? What benefit or harm does seeing a horse have for a cow? Therefore, the non-empty Nirvana and, Samsara are also not permissible in Dharma and Dharmata, the union of appearance and emptiness and, the equality of existence and peace are not here. A water moon is not a moon, by the emptiness of a sky moon and the water moon itself, if the appearance is a union, then it is alright, anyone can take the realization of union. Everyone knows that a cow is not a horse, a cow appears as directly seen, realizing that is wonderful, the great lord said so. Therefore, in one's own system, if one examines a water moon, it is the water moon itself, one cannot find even a little as if it does not exist, the water moon appears as perfectly seen. Although it is a non-affirming negation, it can appear, emptiness and existence in the minds of ordinary beings, although contradictory, yet here in direct perception, this union is wonderful, the wise praise with words of wonder. If measured from the perspective of emptiness, because there is not even a little that is not empty, although one can say one-sidedly that it is non-existent, yet without losing the non-existence of that non-existence, in the nature of unceasing appearance.