Chinese
首先，以三句诗和一个诗节来阐述自宗的观点。那么，什么是远离错误的旧译自宗呢？尊者月称在《入中论》自释中，以教理和正理论证必须证悟无二寂灭之空性，并进一步区分空性，即“无我乃为解脱众生故”。关于此句，在《入中论》自释中，这样阐述了声闻、缘觉和菩萨所证悟的空性的差别：为了断除烦恼障，佛陀为声闻、缘觉们开示了人无我的空性；为了断除所知障，佛陀为佛子菩萨们圆满开示了诸法皆空或无我。那么，如果说声闻、缘觉二者先前已证悟空性，那么所说的教理和正理是什么呢？这是自己对自己的宗派提出疑问并加以消除。声闻、缘觉们希求自己的果位阿罗汉，为了获得阿罗汉果，主要需要断除烦恼障，因此他们证悟并修习了作为烦恼障根本的俱生我执所执著的补特伽罗无我的空性，而对于其他部分，如无二等等的法无我的空性，则没有证悟和修习。并且，十六空性被说为大乘不共之法，因此，应当如自己所阐明的那样去理解，不要以其他方式去理解。其次，以六句诗和两个诗节来阐述龙钦饶绛的观点。如尊者月称所持的观点一样，法王全知龙钦饶绛也这样认为：以前所有的智者都争论声闻、缘觉有无法无我，但我自己认为，以前的声闻、缘觉们有各种根器，但为了获得自己的果位阿罗汉，如果不能证悟以蕴为基础而假立的我之俱生我执所执著的自性成立之我为空性，那么就无法获得自己的果位解脱。
English
Firstly, the view of one's own system is explained with three verses and one line. So, what is the faultless Nyingma view? The venerable Chandrakirti, in his auto-commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra, argues with scripture and reason that one must realize the emptiness that is without the two kinds of peace, and then further distinguishes that emptiness, i.e., "Selflessness is for the sake of liberating beings." Regarding this verse, in the auto-commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra, the distinctions of emptiness realized by the Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and Bodhisattvas are explained as follows: In order to abandon the obscuration of afflictions, the Buddha taught the emptiness of the selflessness of persons to the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas. In order to abandon the obscuration of knowledge, the Buddha perfectly taught the emptiness or selflessness of all phenomena to the Bodhisattva sons of the Buddhas. So he said. Now, if it is said that the two, the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, have previously realized emptiness, then what scripture and reasoning are spoken of? Thus, one raises doubts about one's own system and eliminates them. Those Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas seek their own fruit, the Arhat, and in order to attain that, it is mainly necessary to abandon the all-afflicting afflictions, i.e., just the afflictive obscurations. Therefore, they realize and meditate on the emptiness of the selflessness of the person, which is the root of the clinging to self, the innate clinging to self. But they do not fully realize and meditate on the emptiness of the selflessness of phenomena, such as the absence of other parts, etc. And because the sixteen emptinesses are taught as uncommon to the Great Vehicle, one should understand as it is clearly explained by oneself, and should not understand it in any other way. Secondly, the view of Longchen Rabjam is explained with six verses and two lines. Just as the venerable Chandrakirti holds, so too does the all-knowing Longchen Rabjam, the sovereign of the Buddhas, think in this way: All the learned teachers of the past debated whether the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas have the selflessness of phenomena or not, but I myself think that the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas of the past seem to have various faculties, sharp and dull, but in order to attain their own fruit, the Arhat, if they do not realize the emptiness of the self that is established by its own nature, which is clung to by the innate clinging to self, which clings to the aggregates as "I," then they cannot attain their own fruit, liberation.
Chinese
由于没有获得，所以仅仅是证悟了依此而安立的俱生我执的无自性空性，即使获得阿罗汉果，也没有圆满证悟无分二取等一切法无我的空性。例如，就像小小的芥子被虫蛀蚀，以及洞穴中的天空一样，经中说声缘的证悟无我空性是微小的。因此，为了驳斥证悟空性低下者，在《如意宝藏论》的注释中认为“没有证悟空性”，这实在是前所未有的殊胜善说，因为无论自他，都没有与此相同的善说。例如，即使从大海中喝了一口水，也不能因此就认为喝了大海的水。同样，因为见到了法的一分，即俱生我执的执着境——仅仅是“我”是空性或无我，所以必须承认见到了空性。然而，就像喝了一口海水，并没有将整个海水都喝进肚子一样，因为没有证悟一切所知法的自性全部是空性，所以必须承认没有圆满见到无我或空性。第三，分三：总的阐述；详细地解释经文的意义，消除错误；说明仅仅见到真如，就能成就一乘，并阐述这种说法对其他人不合理，对自己合理。第一，用“如果一法”等十三句偈颂和一个偈颂的半句来阐述。例如，如果见到一根芦苇是空心的，就会见到所有的芦苇都是空心的。同样，这里如果见到并证悟了“如果一法”，即人我空性，那么理应见到并证悟其他一切法都是空性，但为什么说没有见到其他一切法都是空性呢？如果以显示色等一切法无自性的决定之经文、正确之理和甚深之窍诀作为稳固的基础，并追求见到，那么见到一法是空性的，就会见到其他一切法都是空性，但是
English
Since it is not attained, only the emptiness of selflessness, which is the co-emergent clinging to self that is established based on this, is realized. Even if one attains the state of an Arhat, one does not fully realize the emptiness of selflessness of all phenomena, such as the indivisible duality. For example, just as a small mustard seed is eaten by a worm, and like the sky inside a hole, the Sutras say that the emptiness of selflessness realized by Hearers and Solitary Realizers is small. Therefore, in order to refute those with inferior realization of emptiness, the commentary on the Wish-Fulfilling Jewel Treasury considers that "emptiness is not realized," which is truly an unprecedented and excellent explanation, because there is no other explanation similar to this, whether by oneself or others. For example, even if one drinks a mouthful of water from the great ocean, one cannot claim to have drunk the water of the great ocean. Similarly, because one sees a part of the Dharma, that is, the object of clinging of the co-emergent clinging to self—only the "I"—as empty or selfless, one must acknowledge that one has seen emptiness. However, just as drinking a mouthful of seawater does not mean that the entire seawater has entered one's stomach, because one has not realized that the nature of all knowable phenomena is entirely empty, one must acknowledge that one has not fully seen selflessness or emptiness. Third, there are three parts: general explanation; detailed explanation of the meaning of the scriptures, eliminating errors; and explaining how seeing Suchness alone can accomplish the One Vehicle, and explaining why this statement is not reasonable for others but is reasonable for oneself. First, it is explained by thirteen verses and half a verse, such as "If one Dharma." For example, if one sees that a single reed is hollow, one will see that all reeds are hollow. Similarly, here, if one sees and realizes "If one Dharma," that is, the emptiness of the self of a person, then one should see and realize that all other phenomena are empty, but why is it said that one does not see that all other phenomena are empty? If one takes the definitive scriptures that show that all phenomena, such as form, are without inherent existence, as well as correct reasoning and profound instructions, as a firm foundation, and seeks to see, then seeing that one phenomenon is empty, one will see that all other phenomena are empty, but
Chinese
然而，暂时来说，低劣的声闻种姓之人，因为自己害怕轮回，而追求寂静的解脱，仅仅追求证悟人无我，执着于此而修习，最终不追求证悟一切法为空性，因此难以证悟。例如，声闻乘人认为瓶子是假立的，即是假立存在；但他们不认为微尘是假立的，而是认为实有存在。如果声闻乘人以认为瓶子是假立的这种智慧，也能很好地分析微尘，那么也应该能认识到微尘是假立的。即使如此，他们暂时不认为微尘是假立的，而是执着于实有，不必见到由实有而空。同样，见到一个法是空性，也不一定需要见到一切法是空性。不仅如此，粗大的有基之法是假立的，以及无分的微尘实有、真实成立，这些事物虽然显现为直接相违，但对于这些相违的事物，暂时由于缺乏显示微尘无自性的决定性的教证和甚深的口诀，因此他们坚持不相违的宗派而进行论证。同样，如果不是这样，见到一个法是空性，就必须确定证悟一切法为空性，那么大乘唯识宗的人，如果认识到所取是无自性的空性，为什么不能用这种智慧也认识到能取也是无自性的空性呢？应该认识到。中观自续派也一样，以在胜义中认识到一切法无真实成立的空性的理智，为什么不能在名言中也认识到无自相成立，是空性呢？也应该认识到。这样一来，所有宗派的论者，对你来说，都将归于仅仅是中观应成派了。如果那样，声闻和独觉乘人，对于大乘的《广大母经》、《中品母经》等，说不是佛语等，进行诽谤和谩骂，又怎么可能呢？那将是不可能的。因此，一个法的自性，法的法界，对于一切法都是平等的，虽然没有差别，但是外和内
English
However, for the time being, those of inferior Śrāvakayāna lineage, because they fear saṃsāra and seek only the peaceful liberation, they only seek to realize the selflessness of persons, and they meditate with attachment to this. In the end, they do not seek to realize all dharmas as emptiness, so it is difficult to realize. For example, the Śrāvakas believe that a pot is imputed, that is, it exists as an imputation; but they do not believe that atoms are imputed, but rather believe that they exist as real entities. If the Śrāvakas, with the wisdom that recognizes a pot as merely imputed, could also analyze atoms well, then they should also be able to recognize that atoms are merely imputed. Even so, they temporarily do not recognize atoms as imputed, but rather cling to them as real entities, and it is not necessary to see them as empty of reality. Similarly, even if one sees one dharma as empty, it is not necessarily necessary to see all dharmas as empty. Moreover, the coarse, based phenomena that are imputed, and the partless atoms that are real and truly established, although they appear to be directly contradictory, yet for these contradictory phenomena, temporarily, because they lack the definitive scriptural statements and profound instructions that show the absence of inherent existence in atoms, they uphold a non-contradictory tenet and argue for it. Similarly, if it is not the case that by seeing one dharma as empty, one must necessarily realize that all dharmas are empty, then the Mahāyāna Yogācārins, if they realize that the apprehended is empty of inherent existence, why cannot that wisdom also realize that the apprehender is also empty of inherent existence? It should be realized. Similarly, the Svātantrika-Madhyamikas, with the reasoning that realizes that all dharmas are empty of true establishment in the ultimate sense, why cannot they also realize in the conventional sense that they are empty because they are not established by their own characteristics? It should also be realized. In that case, all proponents of philosophical systems will be reduced to being merely Prāsaṅgika-Madhyamikas for you. If that were the case, how could the Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas slander and revile the Mahāyāna, such as the extensive, medium, and short Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, by saying that they are not the words of the Buddha? That would be impossible. Therefore, the nature of one dharma, the dharmadhātu of dharma, is equal for all dharmas, and although there is no difference, outer and inner
Chinese
只要引导者等缘起之聚合不圆满，那么一切法证悟远离一切戏论之法界大平等就会迟缓，因此暂时不会那样证悟。一般来说，由于根器的差别，根器非常敏锐者能依靠自身力量证悟远离戏论之空性，但根器迟钝者不依赖他人，自己当下就能确定证悟远离戏论之空性是不遍的，但无论何时必定会证悟空性。声闻缘觉阿罗汉们进入无余涅槃界后，经过十千大劫，如来劝请，阿罗汉们从灭尽定中再次起身，才进入大乘，这是《妙法莲华经》中所说的。此外，根器敏锐的菩萨种姓者，由于内外引导者圆满，如理如实地进入大乘，从而证悟一切法远离戏论之显空大平等、无我，也需要在无数劫中以方便善巧和大精进来串习，那么追求自利寂静的声闻，用三生等等或者进入灭尽定十千大劫，在如此短暂的时间内，没有圆满证悟一切无我或者远离一切戏论之空性、显空大平等，而且必定需要证悟的阶段怎么会没有呢？这是非常有可能的。不仅如此，大乘圣者登地者，也由于圆满成熟净化的力量，从地到地，法界从遮障中解脱的见解越来越清晰，越来越圆满，不是吗？既然如此，更何况是声闻缘觉阿罗汉呢？如此证悟，也需要积累布施和戒律等无量资粮的助缘，以及五大因等无量理性的甚深道理，以及菩萨们的圆满成熟净化等的行持和回向的因缘，如果这些都毫无欠缺地圆满，那么必定能在短时间内显现空性无别戏论