English
Since there is not even a little bit of inherent existence from the very beginning, both conventional and ultimate truths do not arise from the four extremes, so what is there to hesitate about saying "non-existent"? There is no need for any doubt, as the sutras say that from formlessness, soundlessness, etc., to omniscience, there is no difference in saying "non-existent." Secondly, there are two parts: refuting the other's system with the reasoning of the power of objects being involved, which is unreasonable; and showing how to establish the valid own system through scriptural and logical valid cognition, which is reasonable. Firstly, there are two parts: showing how the other's non-affirming negation becomes an affirming negation, and how it becomes other-emptiness of words and meaning because it cannot be united; and explaining the harms of the unreasonableness of these two separately. The first is shown by three verses, such as "the pillar from the pillar." Here, if we consider the aspect of emptiness of essence, it is considered to be the non-affirming negation free from elaboration; if we consider the aspect of self-nature luminosity, then like the dharmadhatu of emptiness and the inseparable form body and wisdom, etc., the dharmadhatu and wisdom are inseparable, not the self-manifestation of the uncompounded, the spontaneously accomplished supreme qualities of the Buddha, etc., are also considered to be the acceptance of the subsequent discrimination, so there is no harm, and because there is pure establishment, not only is there not the slightest unreasonableness, but also excellent qualities will be easily obtained. Apart from that, no matter how many ultimate truths are examined with reason, for any phenomena included in samsara and nirvana, the difference of negation, such as ultimate truth and true establishment, is added, and only that is negated, while the appearance of other phenomena cannot be negated, and even if it is negated, there will be faults such as slandering conventional truths, so only the ultimate truth, true emptiness, and non-affirming negation of various names are acknowledged as the ultimate view of the profound Madhyamaka, and efforts are made to exert it. Then, the noble Chandrakirti said to the Svātantrika: the three faults of the conventional truth being able to withstand examination by reason, the birth of the ultimate truth not being negated, and the samadhi of the noble ones becoming the cause of the destruction of things will inevitably befall. The omniscient Dharma Lord, in the Wish-Fulfilling Treasury, refutes the distinctions of the lower Svātantrika, such as the teacher Shri Gupta, who believe that appearance and emptiness are different.
Chinese
在……的时候。显现非空，真假二者都不可能存在。并且，那本身是不可证悟的。如果变成他体，作为断证也不合理，因为执着于虚假显现，生起贪嗔等，如果另外知道是空性，则毫无益处，像这样证悟没有任何必要，如所说的那样。在《三摩地王经》中也说：谁对少女有认识，他们的贪欲会增长。如果破坏这些认识，贪欲不会改变衣服。如所说的那样。在这里也是，有法的事物，柱子等显现，各自的自性从一开始就是空性或清净的自性，因此，像这样用理智确定之后，没有留下丝毫的不空。如果存在，那本身就会变成可以被理智分析的，因此，最终分析的理智如果不遮止有法柱子本身不存在，也就是说，如果不遮止，只是说柱子不是真实成立的，这样是无法遮止的，这个有法的柱子是什么呢？永远不合理。这样一来，如果真实成立的柱子被遮止，那么真实成立的空性，和没有被遮止，残留在后面的显现的柱子，也就是说，空和不空的体性变成他体，那二者就像火和热一样，显空无别或者不可能成为双运，比如黑白线缠绕在一起不是双运或者无别一样。因此，有法的柱子，不是柱子本身空，而是认为被遮止的真实成立被其他空，以及法性不是法性本身空，而是其他柱子等二取轮回的法空，这样在安立空基柱子和法性之后，认为真实成立和柱子等被其他空，这些是前者是名言上的他空，后者是意义上的他空，这二者无论哪一个，显现和空性都不能成为有法和法性，同样，真二谛双运，离戏，平等性等在一切方面都不可能，这是以理智无可避免地共同降临的过失。第二，分二：指出名言上的他空在教理、理智、自宗和他宗的观点上相违的三种过失。意义上的他空不能通达空性，以及法和法性等
English
At the time of... Appearance is not empty, and both truth and falsehood are impossible. Moreover, that itself is not something to be realized. If it becomes something other, it is also unreasonable as something to be abandoned and realized, because clinging to false appearances gives rise to attachment, hatred, etc. If one separately knows emptiness, it is of no benefit. Such realization is of no need, as has been said. In the Samadhiraja Sutra, it is also said: Those who have the perception of a maiden, their desire will increase greatly. If these perceptions are destroyed, desire will not change clothes. As it is said. Here also, the appearance of things that are the object of thought, such as pillars, etc., is such that their own nature is empty or pure from the very beginning. Therefore, after determining this with reason, there is not even a little bit of non-emptiness left. If there is, that itself will become something that can be analyzed by reason. Therefore, if the ultimate reasoning does not prevent the object of thought, the pillar itself, from being non-existent, that is, if it does not prevent it, but only says that the pillar is not truly established, it cannot be prevented. What is this pillar that is the object of thought? It is never reasonable. In this way, if the truly established pillar is prevented, then the emptiness of the truly established, and the appearance of the pillar that remains behind without being prevented, that is, the nature of emptiness and non-emptiness becomes something other. Those two are like fire and heat, inseparable from appearance and emptiness, or it is impossible to become a union, just as black and white threads twisted together are not a union or inseparable. Therefore, the pillar that is the object of thought, not the pillar itself is empty, but it is thought that the truly established that is to be prevented is emptied by others, and the Dharma nature is not the Dharma nature itself is empty, but other pillars, etc., the Dharma of the two-fold samsara is empty. Thus, after establishing the empty base pillar and the Dharma nature, it is thought that the truly established and the pillar, etc., are emptied by others. These are the former is the other-emptiness in name, and the latter is the other-emptiness in meaning. In either of these two, appearance and emptiness cannot become the object of thought and the Dharma nature. Similarly, the union of the two truths, free from elaboration, equality, etc., is impossible in all aspects. This is a fault that inevitably descends in common with reason. Second, divide into two: Pointing out the three faults of the other-emptiness in name that contradict the scriptures, reason, and one's own and others' views. The other-emptiness in meaning cannot penetrate emptiness, and Dharma and Dharma nature, etc.
Chinese
因此，揭示了由于不合适而产生的过失。首先，通过“唉玛，彼等”等十个偈颂和一个偈颂的四分之一来揭示。也就是说，轮回和涅槃的一切法，都只是通过名称和概念来假立的，这是无可否认的。即使在建立应成派自己宗义的究竟见地时，也不必将这些缘起的安立全部归于错觉，而是可以真实地安立为量成，因为是世俗量。等等，通过强调确定所破之要点的重要性，将显现历历在目的事物安立在原位，认为所破是实有成立，就像长着角一样，存在着与经教、理证、承诺相违的过失。唉玛，柱子和色等，以彼等柱子和色等自己的自性不空或非空，如果仅仅以所破实有成立等为空，那么空性的基础柱子和色等就会不空地残留下来，成为以各自的自性成立。这样一来，就会与《般若经》广、中等经典中“色以色空”等，从色到一切种智之间的一切法都以各自的自性空性的决定性意义的经文，以及对其的解释《入中论》等的教义直接相违。并且，也与以清净理证成立的方式相违。如此，有法柱子等和所破柱子的实有成立等，二者是本体一还是他？如果像第一种情况一样，认为是本体一，那么，由于所破实有成立等之一被破，有法柱子等之一也会被破，因为二者是一体的，例如火自身不存在，热量也不存在一样。因此，说破除实有成立而不破除柱子是没有意义的。如果像第二种情况一样，认为是本体异，那么，即使破除了有法柱子等各自之外的所破他者实有成立，有法柱子等自己的本体也不会被任何胜义谛的理证所空，因为是可以堪忍观察的，所以会成为实有成立，这样一来，就会像上面所说的那样，出现世俗谛可以堪忍理证观察等过失。或者说，实有成立在世俗中也从未存在过的
English
Therefore, the faults arising from inappropriateness are revealed. Firstly, it is revealed through ten verses and a quarter of a verse such as "Ema, those and those." That is, all these phenomena of samsara and nirvana are undeniably merely imputed by name and concept. Even when establishing the ultimate view of the Prasangika's own system, it is not necessary to consign all these establishments of dependent origination to mere illusion, but it is permissible to establish them as validly established even in reality, because they are conventional valid cognitions. Etc., by emphasizing the importance of ascertaining the key point of what is to be refuted, the vividly appearing objects are placed in their own place, and it is considered that what is to be refuted is truly established, like having horns, and there are faults such as contradicting scripture, reason, and commitment. Ema, pillars and forms, etc., if those pillars and forms, etc., are not empty or non-empty of their own nature, and only emptiness is of what is to be refuted, such as true establishment, then the basis of emptiness, pillars and forms, etc., will remain non-empty, and will become established by their own nature. In that case, it would directly contradict the definitive meaning scriptures such as the extensive and intermediate Prajnaparamita Sutras, which state that "form is empty of form," etc., that all phenomena from form to omniscience are empty of their own nature, and the teachings of their commentaries such as the Madhyamakavatara. Furthermore, it also contradicts the way of establishing it with pure reasoning. Thus, are the subject, pillars, etc., and the object to be refuted, the true establishment of pillars, etc., one entity or different? If, as in the first case, it is considered to be one entity, then, since one of the objects to be refuted, true establishment, etc., is refuted, one of the subjects, pillars, etc., will also be refuted, because the two are one, just as fire itself does not exist, and heat does not exist. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that refuting true establishment does not refute the pillar. If, as in the second case, it is considered to be a different entity, then, even if the object to be refuted, another true establishment, which is other than the subject, pillars, etc., is refuted, the own nature of the subject, pillars, etc., will not be empty by any ultimate reasoning, because it can withstand examination, so it will become truly established, and in that case, there will be faults such as the conventional truth being able to withstand reasoning examination, as mentioned above. Or rather, true establishment has never existed even in convention.
Chinese
那么，是否不需要考察这两者是一还是异呢？虽然实际上轮涅的任何法都没有真实成立的，但因为凡夫俗子面前，柱子和瓶子等被认为是真实的，所以必须那样确定地考察。如圣天菩萨所说：‘有之种子为识，境为其行境，见境无我已，有之种子即转。’因此，中观应成派的观点中，所破的确定，也是以胜义谛的理智来考察，无法忍受考察的不空之瓶，或无法阻挡之瓶的彼岸，即在其他地方，有所破真实成立，是谁无法忍受考察呢？因为在任何地方都没有，所以所破的显现，也是其他人没有认识到，而只有你们认识到，一定是这样，哦！这是不满的话语。然而，将真实成立等的差别安立于所破，或者将胜义谛的差别安立于所破而显示，是将二谛分开，各自阐述各自量所证得的意义，这在中观自续派的论典中非常著名和成立。但在此，如果以考察究竟胜义谛的理智来掌握，那么柱子和瓶子等，说它们不空，有什么必要和理由呢？因为从一开始就确定为远离四边戏论。如《诤辩息灭论》中说：‘何时我有任何承诺，彼时我即有彼过失，我无任何承诺时，我即是无过失者。若以现量等之义，而缘取任何事物，若欲成立或破斥彼，然无有故我无诤。’如是说。如果瓶子以瓶子空，或者柱子以柱子空，那么在世俗名言中，也如同柱子和瓶子等不存在一样，似乎会变成断灭见，因此为了避免诽谤名言等词语的过失，即使安立柱子不以柱子空等，但词语的矛盾无法避免，这方面尤其严重。如何呢？仅仅在世俗中，即未经观察和考察的名言中，说柱子是存在的，这样也不行，柱子它