English
Immediately upon obtaining a slight opportunity of vast courage to speak, free from all dullness, accomplished by valid means, I examined the meaning of the immaculate teachings of scripture, tantra, and pith instructions, just as they are, with correct reasoning based on valid cognition, and spoke as follows. That is how it is. Secondly, there are also seven ways of arranging the answers according to the order of the questions. The first question and answer concerns the response to whether to speak of view with or without refutation, and there are two aspects to this: stating the views of others and identifying the nature of one's own view; and establishing its meaning through scriptural authority and reasoning, through refutation and establishment. First, the 'Tushita View' and so on are taught through five verses and one line. In general, the supreme teacher Maitreya clearly revealed the nature of the Sugata-garbha of the Dharma nature, and turned the three wheels of Dharma in accordance with the minds of those to be trained. As it is said: 'First, non-merit is averted; in the middle, the self is averted; finally, all bases of views are averted; whoever knows this is wise.' As it is said, the first turning of the wheel only taught through representation, without emphasizing it. In the intermediate teachings, if the Sugata-garbha is not empty in its own nature, it would be no different from the eternal self of the outsiders, and therefore it is taught as the nature of the three doors of liberation. In the final teachings, if the clear light wisdom is also extinguished, like a cut-off sky, it would be no different from the naked ascetics, and therefore the clear light wisdom is taught as unconditioned. Thus, the nature of emptiness and the nature of clarity are emphasized and taught as two separate aspects. Furthermore, in its commentary, the glorious Nagarjuna explained the meaning of the intermediate teachings with the Collection of Reasoning, and the meaning of the final teachings with the Collection of Praises, especially emphasizing the direct teaching of emptiness, thus clearly opening the path of profound view. After that, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, and others separately explained the meaning of the Root Wisdom and so on, and engaged in various debates with each other regarding whether or not to apply the distinction of ultimate truth to the object of negation, and whether or not to accept self-establishment in conventional truth as a result. Based on this, here in Tibet as well...
Chinese
玛达让（自续派和应成派）被理解为非常不一致，一些大学者也指出了自续派中观派的空性已成为非遮遣的矛盾。解释《入中论根本慧论》及其注释、《入行论·智慧品》等意趣的雪域学者们，也因是否领会月称和寂天菩萨的意趣等问题而进行了各种辩论。弥旁·衮波（弥勒菩萨）以《现观庄严论》阐释了中间的意趣，以《宝性论》等阐释了最终的意趣，无著以这两者的释论和《摄抉择分》等，主要阐述了暗示道之现观和心性的法性等，从而清晰地开创了广大行派的传统。对于这些意趣，共同之处在于遍计所执、依他起、圆成实这三种，非共同之处在于遍计所执和圆成实这两种的安立方式等，出现了多种解释方式，名言的真如由两位理自在（陈那和法称）阐明。同样，在这个地区，由于对《宝性论》等意趣的了义和不了义各自的解释方式不同，也引发了各种辩论。然而，以公正之心，依靠重义不重言的无垢理路，如果实践关键的意趣，那么佛陀的事业会因所化众生的根器而各自展现其意趣的精髓，虽然名言的承诺略有不同，但实际上如所谓“印度和西藏的班智达和成就者意趣一致”那样，最终的意趣都毫无保留地汇入于远离戏论、平等性的大中观之中。关于这一道理的详细阐述，需要从宗喀巴大师所著的《中观庄严论释》、《心要空性·狮吼》、《总论难点·珍宝之藏》等三界难得之作中去了解。因此，如果义理的关键没有矛盾，那么仅仅是名言的承诺不同，也不会使正法变成邪见或非法，因为要重义不重言。即使如此，无论是自方还是他方，不应随波逐流，而应以正确的理路进入无过失的名言，这一点非常重要。正如所说：不应执著名言
English
The terms "Svatantrika" and "Prasangika" are understood as very different, and some great scholars have pointed out the contradiction that the emptiness of the Svatantrika Madhyamaka school has become a non-affirming negation. The scholars of the Land of Snows, who explained the intentions of the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and its commentaries, the *Bodhicaryāvatāra*, and other texts, also engaged in various debates based on whether or not they understood the intentions of Chandrakirti and Shantideva. Maitreya-natha explained the intermediate intention with the *Abhisamayalankara*, and the ultimate intention with the *Uttaratantra Shastra*, etc. Asanga clarified the explicit realization of the path and the nature of the essence, etc., mainly through the explanations of these two and the *Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī*, thus clearly opening up the tradition of the vast conduct school. Regarding the meaning of these, the commonality lies in the three: parikalpita, paratantra, and pariniṣpanna; the non-commonality lies in the ways of establishing the two: parikalpita and pariniṣpanna. There have been many ways of explaining these, and the suchness of conventional truth has been clarified by the two lords of reasoning (Dignāga and Dharmakīrti). Similarly, in this region, due to the different ways of explaining the definitive and provisional meanings of the *Uttaratantra Shastra* and other texts, various debates have arisen. However, with an impartial mind, relying on the immaculate reasoning that values meaning over words, if one practices the key points of the intention, then the activity of the Buddhas will manifest the essence of their respective intentions according to the capacity of the beings to be tamed. Although the conventional commitments may be slightly different, in reality, as the saying goes, "The intentions of the Indian and Tibetan panditas and siddhas are the same," the ultimate intention converges and flows without reservation into the great Madhyamaka, free from elaboration, and into equality. The detailed explanation of this principle can be understood from Je Tsongkhapa's *Commentary on the Ornament of Madhyamaka*, *Essence of Emptiness: Lion's Roar*, *General Difficult Points: Jewel Treasury*, and other rare works found in the three realms. Therefore, if there is no contradiction in the key points of the meaning, then merely different conventional commitments will not turn the Dharma into wrong views or non-Dharma, because one must rely on meaning and not on words. Even so, whether one is on one's own side or another's, it is important not to follow the echo of others' words, but to engage in faultless conventional terms with correct reasoning. As it is said: Do not cling to conventional terms.
Chinese
依赖于此，不会领悟圣者的意义。如是说。因此，在这种以及类似的情况下，对于所有问题的回答，都要以公正的心仔细研究，不偏颇地看待，努力寻求正确的意义，这是智者们视为珍宝并奉为瑜伽的唯一途径。事实上，在雪域，大多数早期和后来的大学者，如冈丹山等，都说中观的究竟见解必须是断除所破的真实成立的空性，即无遮。另一些早期和后来的大学者则说，究竟的实相，胜义谛本身，不是以二取轮回之法的空性为空性的非遮。那么，宁玛派不与其他宗派相混淆的独特主张是什么呢？究竟的实相是远离增益和损减二者的离戏平等性，或者在双运大智慧的境界中，所谓的无遮，不是指遮除所破的真实成立后剩下的空无一物或彻底的空性；而所谓的非遮，也不是指在遮除所破之后，又添加了法性等其他法。因为这两者都只是通过心识以排除他者的角度进行推断，而不是自性成立的。因此，对于究竟的实相，不承认任何的承许，既不承认无遮，也不承认非遮。因为实相的自性究竟是远离遮除无遮和建立非遮等一切二元对立的，是超越心识、不可言说、不可思议、各自自证智慧的行境，是原始的法性。即便如此，如果仅仅从暂时确立一切法之自性为空性的角度来考虑，并问是无遮还是非遮，那么必须承认是无遮。如同在圣地，吉祥月称和在藏地，全知荣 सोमཆོས་བཟང་二者，以同一心意和同一声音，论证了轮涅所摄的一切法从原始以来就是清净的，从而以理证和教证成立了本来清净大空性一样，认为是离戏大无遮。因此，像这样，轮涅所摄的一切法从本来就是清净的。
English
Relying on that, one will not realize the meaning of the noble ones. Thus it is said. Therefore, in this and similar cases, for all questions and answers, one should carefully examine with an unbiased mind, not looking at it wrongly, and strive to seek the correct meaning. This is the only way for scholars to regard it as a precious jewel and practice it as yoga. In fact, in the land of snow, most of the early and later great scholars, such as Gadenpa, say that the ultimate view of Madhyamaka must be emptiness that cuts off the truly established object to be refuted, which is a non-affirming negation. Others, some of the early and later great scholars, say that the ultimate reality, the ultimate truth itself, is emptiness, not emptiness by the emptiness of the phenomena of dualistic samsara, which is an affirming negation. So, what is the unique assertion of the early translation school that is not mixed with other schools? The ultimate reality is the equality of non-elaboration, free from the two extremes of superimposition and denial, or in the realm of great union wisdom, the so-called non-affirming negation is not merely the absence or utter emptiness after the object to be refuted, the truly established, has been negated; and the so-called affirming negation is not something that adds another dharma, such as the nature of reality, after the object to be refuted has been negated. Because both of these are only inferred through the mind by way of excluding others, and are not established by their own nature, therefore, for the meaning of the ultimate nature, no assertion is accepted, neither non-affirming negation nor affirming negation. Because the ultimate nature of reality itself is free from all dualities such as negating non-affirming negation and establishing affirming negation, it is beyond mind, inexpressible, inconceivable, the object of the wisdom of individual self-awareness, the primordial nature of reality. Even so, if one only considers the way to definitively establish the nature of all phenomena as emptiness, and asks whether it is non-affirming negation or affirming negation, then one must accept that it is non-affirming negation. Just as in the noble land, glorious Chandrakirti and in the land of Tibet, omniscient Rongzom Chözang, with one mind and one voice, proved that all phenomena included in samsara and nirvana are pure from the beginning, thus establishing the great emptiness of primordial purity with scripture and reasoning, they consider it to be the great non-elaborated non-affirming negation. Therefore, like this, all these phenomena included in samsara and nirvana are pure from the beginning.
Chinese
因为从最初起就没有自性成立的丝毫，世俗和胜义二谛都没有从四边生起，所以说“无”有什么可犹豫的呢？根本不需要怀疑，如经中说，从无色、无声等色法到一切智之间，没有任何差别地说“无”。第二，分二：不合理，以他宗事物力量加入的道理来遮破；合理，以自宗的教证、理证、量成立的方式来显示。第一，分二：显示他宗的无遮变成非遮，并且由于不能双运而变成词和义的他空；分别讲述对这二者的不合理之处的损害。第一，由“柱子从柱子”等三颂来显示。其中，如果就本体空性的方面来说，则认为是离戏的无遮；如果就自性光明方面来说，则如空性的法界与不可分离的色身和智慧等，法界与智慧二者无别，不是聚合的自性显现，任运成就的佛陀的无上功德等所说的那样，也同样认为是后得分别时的承认，所以没有任何损害，而且因为有清净的能立，不仅没有丝毫的不合理，而且还会轻易获得殊胜的功德。除此之外，无论以多少胜义谛的理智来观察，对于轮涅所摄的任何法，都加上胜义和真实成立等的遮遣的差别，而仅仅遮止它，其他的法性的显现则不能遮止，即使遮止，也会有诽谤名言等的过失，所以仅仅承认多种名称的胜义谛、真实空性、无遮，作为甚深中观的究竟见解，并且努力发挥，那么，圣者月称论师对自续派说：世俗谛被理智所观察而成为能忍受，胜义谛的生不被遮止，圣者的等持成为事物的坏灭之因的三种过失，将不可避免地降临。全知法王在《如意宝藏论》中，驳斥了自续下部的分别，如教师吉祥隐等认为显现和空性是不同的宗派。