Chinese
为了清楚地阐述，详细解释了所要表达的内容，并将其分为三个部分：流浪者以提问的方式引发讨论，从而确立了所要表达的主题的本质；圣人以回答的方式详细阐述了各个部分，从而确定了事物的真实本质；提问者以恭敬的态度赞美了至上的教义，并敦促他人点亮奇妙的佛法之灯。第一部分，以“如此思考”等十个偈颂和三个诗句来阐述。前面所说的，将如此思考的、具有公正智慧的伟大圣人的形象，描绘成一个流浪者的形象，他自发地产生了思辨的念头，然后为了驳斥和考察难以理解的深奥之处，提出了下面将要出现的七个问题。也就是说，对于这些问题的答案，如果只是重复或复述其他智者早已反复阐述的内容，那么智者们认为这有什么值得赞扬的地方呢？不值得赞扬。如果不是这样，而是对于这些难以理解的深奥之处，以公正的态度，谨慎地运用自己的思辨能力和精细的智慧，如理如实地进行考察，那么请以符合经文和理证的方式来回答这些问题。只有这样，才能从语言的表达中，像亲眼看到一样清晰地显现出内在的思辨智慧，从而值得赞扬和称颂。否则，即使听闻了大量的经论，身体变得臃肿，辩论的绳索拉得很长，从而被称为智者并变得傲慢，也像无法饮用深井中的泉水一样。如果用比喻来说明，就像住在小井里的乌龟，后来看到大海而死去一样，各自满足于自己所见的狭隘的观点，仅仅确定了辩论的一个方面。超越这些，对于极其难以理解的、广阔而深奥的法，就像大海之水一样无量无边的
English
In order to clearly accomplish this, the parts of the subject matter are explained in detail and divided into three sections: A wanderer initiates the discussion by asking questions, thereby establishing the essence of the subject matter to be expressed. The sage, in the manner of answering, elaborates on each part in detail, thereby determining the true nature of things. The questioner, with a respectful attitude, praises the supreme teaching and urges others to illuminate the wondrous lamp of Dharma. The first part is taught through ten verses and three lines, beginning with "Thus thinking." The image of the great sage, who possesses impartial wisdom and contemplates in this way as described above, is depicted as a wanderer. Spontaneous thoughts of discernment arise, and in the guise of a wanderer, he asks the following seven questions, which will appear below, in order to refute and examine the profound and difficult-to-understand points. That is to say, if the answers to these questions are merely repetitions or restatements of what other wise individuals have already repeatedly taught, what do the wise see as praiseworthy in this? It is not worthy of praise. If it is not so, but rather, with regard to these profound and difficult-to-understand points, one's own discernment is truly impartial and carefully applied, and one examines them with meticulous wisdom, then please answer these questions in a way that is in accordance with scripture and reason. Only then will the inner wisdom of discernment become clear, like seeing it directly, from the expression of speech, and thus it will become an object of praise and commendation. Otherwise, even if one has heard many collections of texts, one's body becomes swollen, and one stretches out the ropes of debate for a long time, becoming famous as a scholar and becoming arrogant, it is like being unable to drink from the spring of a very deep well. If the example itself is skillfully explained, it is like a turtle living in a small well who later sees the great ocean and dies. Each is content with merely determining one aspect of debate based on their own narrow view. Transcending this, the categories of Dharma, which are extremely difficult to understand and are vast and profound, are immeasurable and endless like the water of the great ocean.
Chinese
对于超越世俗的不可思议的法，由于没有见过或听过其他类似的法，也没有如实地体验过其意义的要点，不仅不因其非自己的行为领域而气馁，反而还希望和执着于精通深奥的经续而自满，例如，就像一个出身卑贱的贱民之子爱上了一个国王权势鼎盛的王妃一样，因为没有那样的权势。不仅如此，随意发挥看似辩论的言辞，就像那个出身卑贱的人一旦犯淫，就会发生丧命的巨大灾难一样，由于舍弃了深奥的法，自己和他人都会在无间地狱中，从劫到劫地燃烧和焚烧，所以想要自己好的人要谨慎啊！如果要问什么深奥的要点，那就是，过去那些圣贤大德们，为了维护宗派的颜面，以及解释经文的意义，以及为了竞争智慧的翅膀，虽然由于需要而广泛地进行了各种辩论的辩驳，但是无论如何，似乎很难找到一个与经文、理性和口诀不相违背的无过失的承诺，请问这些问题：关于究竟的见解，有些贤哲说是无遮止，有些说是非遮止，这两种说法中，哪一种是符合经文和理性的？同样，声闻和缘觉阿罗汉是证悟了法和补特伽罗的两种无我，还是没有证悟？哪一种说法更合理？在安住或安置于实相的意义时，是有执着还是没有执着？哪一种更合理？关于禅修，是通过观察来禅修，还是不作观察而安住来禅修？哪一种更合理？在二谛中，是说世俗谛还是胜义谛更为主要？就像水一样，六道众生看到的是不一样的六种显现，那么，对于这种共同的显现，是否存在共同的观看对象？在大中观中，对于有或没有自宗的承诺的说法中，哪一种说法具有经文和理性的清净的论证，以及论证的方式是怎样的？如此这般，对于这七个基于实相空性的深奥意义的问题，不要违背善逝的经教量，要如经文的意义一样真实
English
Regarding the inconceivable Dharma that transcends the mundane, since one has not seen or heard of other similar Dharmas, nor has one truly experienced the essence of its meaning, not only is one not discouraged by it being outside one's own sphere of practice, but one also hopes for and clings to the fame and reputation of being learned in the profound sutras and tantras, becoming conceited. For example, it is like a son of a low-caste outcaste falling in love with a queen of a prosperous and powerful king, because one does not have such power. Moreover, freely engaging in seemingly argumentative words is like that low-caste person incurring a great disaster of losing his life if he engages in adultery. Because of abandoning the profound Dharmas, oneself and others will burn and be incinerated in the Avici Hell from kalpa to kalpa. Therefore, those who wish themselves well should be cautious! If one were to ask what profound points are, it is like this: In the past, those holy and wise scholars, in order to uphold the reputation of their schools, and to explain the meaning of the scriptures, and to compete with the wings of their intellect, although they extensively engaged in various debates and refutations out of necessity, it seems difficult to find a faultless commitment that does not contradict the scriptures, reason, and oral instructions. Please ask these questions: Regarding the ultimate view, some scholars say it is non-affirming negation, and some say it is affirming negation; which of these two statements is established by scripture and reason? Similarly, do the Hearers and Solitary Realizers Arhats realize both the selflessness of phenomena and the selflessness of persons, or do they not realize them? Which statement is more appropriate? When abiding or placing oneself in the meaning of reality, is there grasping or no grasping? Which is more appropriate? Regarding meditation, is it more appropriate to meditate by analyzing, or to meditate by abiding without analysis? Which is more appropriate? Regarding the two truths, is it more appropriate to say that the conventional truth or the ultimate truth is more important? Just as water is seen differently by the six types of beings, appearing as six different things, is there a common object of perception for this shared appearance? In the Great Madhyamaka, among those who say that there is or is not a self-established tenet, which statement has a pure proof of scripture and reason, and what is the way of proving it? Thus, regarding these seven questions based on the profound meaning of the emptiness of reality, without contradicting the valid teachings of the Sugata, may it be as real as the meaning of the scriptures.
Chinese
请正确地给予以力量之理成立的回答的差别！对于不像经文一样以理成立的回答，没有必要。像那样，即使以如辩论之语和过失之词的连串显现的、如荆棘之矛的理，用百万之数一齐投掷，也丝毫不能刺穿或摧毁，即无论破立都不能，因此以前被称为智者的大德们也变得愚昧和迷惑，对于如实证悟的言说稀少而困难的这些甚深要点，请不要缩短以经论正量成立的回答的差别之语的舌尖，而是像闪电一样迅速地伸长，请给予回答！像那样，以分别的智慧极度催促的语言之风稍微或微小地吹动而提出的问题，也像末劫之风摇动山峰一样，摇动了公正正直的仙人的心，于是暂时保持着不说任何回答之相的沉默，即在稍微变得不知所措的最后，这样说：‘唉！长久勤奋的百千努力的巨大重担恒常依靠，并且再三以分别的敏锐智慧之火无间断地相续炽燃，成为大智者的那位，也未能将这些问题以正量成立的回答的差别，在远离一切过失的承诺如精炼黄金般的境界中成立，是这样的话，那么，先前修习的俱生、骄傲的智慧能力变得薄弱，现在也没有承受以巨大努力长久修习的百千重担的低劣的我，怎么能对这些说出没有过失的回答的差别呢？’在那时，以从内心深处对殊胜本尊至尊文殊菩萨的强烈信仰，以痛苦的力量呼唤和祈祷，想必是从殊胜本尊的加持力中产生的，即以殊胜本尊的加持融入内心的力量，对于公正观察的分辨意识，譬如黎明破晓时分的显现无误的景象一样，回答的差别，无过失的承诺，经论正
English
Please correctly grant the distinction of answers established by the power of reason! There is no need for answers that are not established by reason like scriptures. Like that, even if a million of the reason that appears like a string of argumentative words and fallacious statements, like a thorn spear, are thrown all at once, they cannot pierce or destroy it even slightly, that is, they cannot refute or establish anything, so even the great ones who were previously known as wise become ignorant and confused, and for these profound key points where speaking of true realization is rare and difficult, please do not shorten the tip of the tongue that speaks the distinction of answers established by scriptural reasoning, but extend it quickly like lightning and give an answer! Like that, the question asked by the wind of speech slightly or minutely stirred by the wisdom of discernment also shook the heart of that impartial and upright sage like the wind of the final age shaking the mountains, and then he temporarily maintained silence without speaking any form of answer, that is, at the end of becoming slightly at a loss, he said: 'Alas! That one who has become a great scholar by constantly relying on the great burden of hundreds of thousands of efforts of long-term diligence and continuously igniting the fire of sharp wisdom of discernment without interruption, even he has not been able to establish the distinction of answers to these questions established by valid cognition in the realm of a commitment free from all faults like refined gold, if that is the case, then, the innate ability of prideful wisdom, which was previously cultivated, has become weak, and now I, who am inferior and have not borne the hundreds of burdens of long-term cultivation with great effort, how can I speak of the distinction of answers to these without fault?' At that time, calling and praying with the force of suffering from a strong faith from the depths of my heart to the supreme deity, the venerable Manjushri, it must have arisen from the power of the blessings of that supreme deity, that is, with the power of the blessings of the supreme deity entering the heart, for the discriminating consciousness of impartial observation, like the unmistakable appearance of dawn at the time of daybreak, the distinction of answers, the faultless commitment, scriptural reasoning
Chinese
当以正量成就，获得些许脱离一切昏昧，能够演说的广阔勇气之际，随即以善说之无垢教言，如实以正理观察经续窍诀之意而如是说。如是。第二，就按所问的次第安立回答的方式也有七种。第一问答，无论如何宣说有无破立之见之回答有两种：陈述他宗并确定自宗见之体性；从彼之意，以教理之路破立而确定。第一，以《兜率天见》等五颂及一偈来阐述。其中，通常导师胜者弥勒怙主已开显法性如来藏之体性的方式，为了适应所化众生的根器而转了三次法轮，如云：最初遮止非福德，中间遮止我，最后遮止一切见之所依，谁知此理即是智者。如是说。初转法轮仅以表述的方式阐述，而未着重强调。中转法轮中，若如来藏以自性不空，则与外道的常我无有差别，故而阐述为解脱三门的自性。末转法轮中，若光明智慧也灭尽，如断灭虚空一般，则与裸体外道无有差别，故而阐述光明智慧为非造作，因此着重强调了体性空性和自性光明二者各自的体性而宣说。其注释中，圣者龙树以理聚阐释中转法轮之意，以赞聚阐释末转法轮之意，尤其以直接阐述空性为主，从而开显了甚深见解的道路。此后，佛护、清辨、圣天、月称等分别阐释了《中观根本慧论》等的意趣，在所破上是否施加胜义的差别，以及由此是否承认名言上自相成立等差别上，互相进行了各种辩论。依此，在藏地也...