English
If one cultivates the essential meaning with the immaculate reasoning that relies on meaning through intelligence, the activities of the Buddhas will manifest their respective intentions according to the capacity of the beings to be tamed. Although the nominal commitments may differ slightly, in reality, just as it is said that the intentions of the Chinese and Tibetan siddhas are the same, the ultimate intention, the great Madhyamaka free from elaboration, the equality, flows and converges into one without any distinction. Regarding this, Je Jamyang Lama has already well explained the profound meaning of the scriptures and reasoning in the Ornament of Madhyamaka and the Lion's Roar of the Essence of the Sugatas, etc., which I have personally practiced, so I will not repeat it here. Therefore, even if the nominal commitments differ slightly, whether one's own or another's, one should not find fault with it. Even if there is a fault, it will not become a wrong view or a false dharma, because it is said that one should rely on meaning and not on words. Even so, whether one's own or another's, one should not follow the echo of others, but it is important to enter into an impeccable nominal designation with correct reasoning. As it is said, "Nominal truth is the means." Therefore, in all questions and answers, one should not look at things perversely with an impartial mind, but should seek the correct meaning, which is what scholars should cherish as the heart's treasure in yoga. In reality, in the snowy land, most of the scholars who appeared earlier and later, led by the Gelugpas, say that the ultimate view of Madhyamaka must be emptiness that cuts off the object to be refuted as truly established, which is a non-affirming negation. Others, earlier and later scholars, say that the ultimate reality, the ultimate truth, is not emptiness that is empty of the phenomena of dualistic samsara, but a non-negation. So, what is the Nyingma's own system that is not mixed with other schools? The ultimate reality is the equality free from elaboration, free from the two extremes of addition and subtraction, or the abandonment of non-affirming negation of the great wisdom of union, that is, it is not the mere absence of emptiness left after refuting true establishment, etc., nor is it annihilation, nor is it addition, but it is a non-negation, that is, after refuting the object to be refuted, one establishes other dharmas such as the nature of reality. Both of these are established by means of eliminating others through intelligence.
Chinese
因为仅仅是破除，而不是以自性成立，所以在究竟的自性方面，由于远离一切的取舍，所以既不承认无遮，也不承认非遮。因为究竟的实相是远离破除无遮和建立非遮等一切二取，是超越心识、不可言说、不可思议、各自自证的智慧的行境，是原始的法性。即使如此，暂时仅仅思惟如何确定一切法的体性是空性，如果问是无遮还是非遮，则承认是无遮。如同圣地的圣者月称和藏地的全知荣宗·曲桑，二者心意相同，言语一致，已经用教证和理证成立了轮涅所摄的一切法，本来就是清净的，是本来清净的大空性。同样，轮涅所摄的一切法，从一开始就是清净的，或者本来就没有自性，或者是不存在的，因此，世俗谛和胜义谛二者都没有从四边生起，所以说“无”有什么可犹豫的呢？不需要有任何怀疑。如经中所说，色无、声无等，从色到一切智之间都是无或者空性。第二，分二：驳斥不合理的他宗；建立合理的自宗。第一，分二：简略地说明他宗的无遮也会变成非遮，并且词和义的异体空性不能结合；广说这一点。第一，用“柱子从柱子”等三颂来表示。其中，在这里，如果是从体性空性的角度出发，就是离戏的无遮；如果是从自性光明的光明角度出发，就是体性空性的法界和不可分离的佛身和智慧等，法界和智慧二者没有分别，是不作意任运成就的佛陀无上功德，在后得分别时也这样承认。因为对于所欲没有损害，并且有能立，所以没有丝毫的不合理，不仅如此，而且也能轻易获得无上的功德。那么如何获得呢？无论有多少以究竟的胜义谛来观察的理智，
English
Since it is merely an elimination and not established by its own nature, in terms of the ultimate nature, since it is free from all acceptance and rejection, it does not accept either non-affirming negation or affirming negation. Because the ultimate reality is free from all dualistic phenomena such as non-affirming negation and establishing affirming negation, it is beyond mind, inexpressible, inconceivable, and the object of the wisdom of individual self-awareness, which is the primordial nature of reality. Even so, if one only considers how to ascertain that the essence of all phenomena is emptiness, and asks whether it is non-affirming negation or affirming negation, one acknowledges that it is indeed non-affirming negation. Just as the noble Chandrakirti of the sacred land and the omniscient Rongzom Chözang of Tibet, with one mind and one voice, have established through scripture and reasoning that all phenomena encompassed by samsara and nirvana are primordially pure, the great emptiness of original purity. Similarly, all these phenomena encompassed by samsara and nirvana are pure from the beginning, or are without inherent existence from the beginning, or are non-existent. Therefore, both relative and ultimate truths do not arise from the four extremes, so what hesitation is there in saying 'non-existent'? There is no need for any doubt. As it is said in the sutras, form is without, sound is without, etc., from form to omniscience, all are without or empty. Secondly, there are two parts: refuting the unreasonable views of others; establishing one's own reasonable view. First, there are two parts: briefly stating that the non-affirming negation of others also becomes affirming negation, and that the other-emptiness of words and meanings cannot be combined; and explaining this in detail. First, it is indicated by three verses, such as 'a pillar from a pillar'. Here, if we consider it from the perspective of the emptiness of essence, it is the non-affirming negation free from elaboration; if we consider it from the perspective of the luminosity of self-nature, it is the Buddha's unsurpassed qualities, such as the Dharmakaya and wisdom that are inseparable from the sphere of emptiness of essence, the two spheres of essence and wisdom being non-dual, and the spontaneously accomplished self-display that is uncreated. These are also acknowledged as such at the time of subsequent discrimination. Since there is no harm to what is desired and there is proof, there is not the slightest unreasonableness, and not only that, but unsurpassed qualities will also be easily attained. So how is it attained? No matter how many kinds of reasoning examine the ultimate truth,
Chinese
如果将总体的法，加上真实和实有等所破的差别，只破除那个，而其他的法，如果破除这个显现，即使破除也不能够，而且还有违背名言等的过失。因此，如果自续派中观师仅仅承认胜义谛真实空是无遮破，并努力论证这是甚深中观的究竟见解，那是不合理的。 尊贵的月称论师曾说过，如果这样，就会犯三种过失：世俗谛经不起理智的分析；胜义谛的生不被遮止；圣者的等持会成为事物毁灭的原因。 这是不可避免的。全知龙钦巴在《如意宝藏论》中，在驳斥自续下部的分别，如导师吉祥藏等认为显现和空性是不同的观点时说：不是显现的空性，两种真实都不可能存在；不能被证悟，如果变成不同，则不适合作为对治。就像对敌人产生嗔恨时，知道虚空是空性的也没有用一样，执着于虚假的显现，而另外知道空性也没有任何用处，因此，证悟那样的空性是没有必要的。正如他所说的那样。《三摩地王经》中也说：谁对少女有认识，谁的贪欲就增长。如果破坏了认识，贪欲就不会改变衣服。就像这样，因此，在这里，作为法的显现，柱子等各自的自性，从一开始就是空性的，或者是因为清净的自性，所以这样用理智确定之后，没有不空性的东西留下。如果存在，就会经得起理智的分析。因此，如果不遮止用观察究竟实相的理智来遮止作为法的柱子本身不存在，那么说柱子不是真实成立的，就不能够遮止，这个作为法的柱子是什么呢？这是不合理的。如果那样，因为遮止了真实成立的柱子，所以真实的空性没有被遮止，而留下来的显现的柱子，空性和不空性的不同，就像火和热一样，显空无别或者双运是不可能的，例如，黑白线缠绕在一起是双运或者无
English
If we apply the distinctions of what is to be refuted, such as ultimate and truly established, to whatever is the general subject, and only refute that, then if we refute this appearance with another subject, even if we refute it, we will not be able to, and there will also be great faults such as violating conventional truths. Therefore, if the Svatantrika Madhyamikas only acknowledge that the ultimate truth of true emptiness is a mere non-affirming negation, and strive to prove that this is the ultimate view of the profound Madhyamaka, it is unreasonable. The venerable Chandrakirti said that if this is the case, three faults will occur: conventional truth will not withstand rational analysis; the arising of ultimate truth will not be prevented; and the samadhi of the noble ones will become the cause of the destruction of things. This is inevitable. Omniscient Longchenpa, in the Yizhin Dzö, when refuting the views of the lower Svatantrika distinctions, such as the teacher Palasbas, who believe that appearance and emptiness are different, said: Emptiness that is not appearance, both truths cannot exist; it cannot be realized, and if it becomes different, it is not suitable as an antidote. Just as when anger arises towards an enemy, knowing that space is empty is of no use, so clinging to false appearances, and separately knowing emptiness is of no use, therefore, realizing such emptiness is unnecessary. Just as he said. The Samadhiraja Sutra also says: Whoever has the perception of a maiden, their desire increases greatly. If the perception is destroyed, desire will not change clothes. Just like that, therefore, here too, as the appearance of the subject, the nature of the pillar and so on, from the beginning is emptiness, or because it is the nature of purity, so after determining this with reason, there is nothing that is not empty left. If it exists, it will withstand rational analysis. Therefore, if we do not prevent the reason that examines the ultimate reality from preventing the subject, the pillar itself, from not existing, then saying that the pillar is not truly established cannot prevent it, what is this subject, the pillar? This is unreasonable. If that is the case, because the truly established pillar is prevented, the true emptiness is not prevented, and the remaining appearance of the pillar, the difference between emptiness and non-emptiness, like fire and heat, the inseparability of appearance and emptiness or union is impossible, for example, black and white threads twisted together are union or non-
Chinese
就像不是那样一样。因此，如果认为有法柱子不是由柱子自身空，而是由所破的真实现立的他者空，以及法性不是由法性自身空，而是由其他的柱子空，这样安立空性的所依是柱子和法性，然后认为由真实现立和柱子等他者空，这些无论是对于名言的他空还是对于实义的他空来说，显现和空性都不能成为有法和法性，同样，显空无别或者双运、平等性以及离戏都不能成立的理证的过失，会共同地、不可避免地降临。第二部分分为两点：论证和理证相违以及破斥；显示双运等不能成立。第一点，以“唉玛，由彼”等十个偈颂和一个偈颂的半句来显示。对此，有经教、理证和自相矛盾三种，依次是，唉玛，柱子和法性等不是由其自身，柱子和法性等不是由各自的自性空，或者说不空，而是仅仅由所破的真实现立等空，那么空性的所依柱子和法性等就会不空地残留下来，从而会以各自的自性成立。如果那样，那么“色即是由色空”等等，从色到一切种智之间的一切法都由各自的自性空，这样宣说的《母经》广、中等了义的经教之义相违背，而且也与具有理证的相违背。如何相违背呢？有法柱子等和所破柱子的真实现立等，这两者是本体一还是本体异？如果像第一种情况一样，认为是本体一，那么，由于所破的真实现立等其中之一被破，有法柱子等其中之一也会被破，因为这两者是一体的，例如，就像火自身不存在，热量也就不存在一样。因此，说“遮止真实现立，而不遮止柱子”是没有意义的。如果像第二种情况一样，认为是本体异，那么，即使不是有法柱子等各自的所破的他者真实现立等被遮止，有法柱子等各自的本体也不会被胜义谛的理证所空，因为是可以堪忍观察的，所以会变成真实现立，等等过失，以及太过于周遍，名言谛是可以堪忍理证观察的，等等，就像上面所说的那样。