English
So, is it not necessary to examine whether these two are one or different? Although in reality, none of the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are truly established, since ordinary beings perceive pillars and pots, etc., as real, it is necessary to examine them in that way. As stated by Āryadeva: 'The seed of existence is consciousness, objects are its field of activity, having seen the selflessness of objects, the seed of existence is reversed.' Therefore, in the view of the Madhyamaka-Prāsaṅgika school, the determination of what is to be refuted is also examined by the reasoning of ultimate truth. Who cannot tolerate the examination of the non-empty pot, or the other side of the unstoppable pot, that is, in another place, where what is to be refuted is truly established? Because it does not exist anywhere, the appearance of what is to be refuted is also not recognized by others, but only by you. It must be so, oh! This is a dissatisfied statement. However, to apply the distinction of being truly established, etc., to what is to be refuted, or to apply the distinction of ultimate truth to what is to be refuted and show it, is to separate the two truths and explain the meaning attained by each valid cognition separately. This is very famous and established in the treatises of the Madhyamaka-Svātantrika school. But here, if we take control with the reasoning of examining the ultimate state of ultimate truth, then what is the necessity and reason for applying the statement that pillars and pots, etc., are not empty of themselves? Because from the beginning, it is determined to be free from the elaboration of the four extremes. As it says in the *Vigrahavyāvartanī*: 'When I have any commitment, then I have that fault, when I have no commitment, then I am faultless. If by means of perception, etc., one apprehends anything, if one wants to establish or refute it, but since it does not exist, I have no quarrel.' As it is said. If a pot is empty of a pot, or a pillar is empty of a pillar, then in conventional terms, it would seem as if pillars and pots, etc., do not exist, and it would become a nihilistic view. Therefore, in order to avoid the fault of slandering conventional terms, even if one establishes that a pillar is not empty of a pillar, etc., the contradiction of words cannot be avoided, and this is especially serious. How so? Merely in convention, that is, in terms that have not been examined or investigated, it is not enough to say that a pillar exists, the pillar it
Chinese
说“柱子不空”是不合理的，正如将要解释的那样。如果说这两者意思相同，所以没有不合理之处，那么这两者意思并不相同。例如，说“有柱子”和说“柱子上存在柱子”是不一样的，因为后者“柱子上”实际上承认了所依和能依的关系，就像承认了所依于其他柱子的柱子是所依一样。此外，说“它不空”对于两种谛都不合理。在胜义谛中，如果通过胜义的理智分析，无法找到柱子等轮回和涅槃的任何法，或者说它们不存在，那么为什么还要说“柱子不空”呢？这没有任何必要和作用。在世俗谛中，重复两次“柱子，柱子”只是对术语和表达的无知，并且仅仅与意义相悖，没有任何意义。这也与自己的承诺相矛盾。如果柱子等各自不空于自身，即不空于各自的自性，那么在自性存在的情况下，由于空于真实的成立等其他所破，因此不承认他空而承认自空是矛盾的。由于柱子等显现中没有其他不同的所破，如果空于各自的自性，那么承认柱子不空于自身也是矛盾的。第二，一般来说，通过四句偈和两句偈来阐述“一般来说，由其他”。一般来说，无论早期的还是后期的论敌，无论哪个宗派的论者，自然法性涅槃等不空于自身，而所破的轮回等空于其他，这并不能确定自然法性等空于自身的自性。因为这些是法和它的法性，显现和它的空性，是不同的。例如，马不是牛，牛也不是马，因此通过无错乱的现量所见的马被完全确定，即使因为没有看到其他的牛而知道它没有成立，仅仅排除牛并不能确定马也是空于自身的自性。因为这两者是无关联的，是不同的，因为这两者不是法和法性，不是缘起和空性，也不是方便和方便生。
English
It is unreasonable to say "the pillar is not empty," as will be explained. If it is said that these two have the same meaning, so there is no unreasonableness, then these two do not have the same meaning. For example, saying "there is a pillar" and saying "there is a pillar on the pillar" are not the same, because the latter "on the pillar" actually acknowledges the relationship between the support and the supported, just as acknowledging that the pillar that relies on other pillars is the support. Furthermore, saying "it is not empty" is unreasonable for both truths. In the ultimate truth, if through ultimate intellectual analysis, no pillar or any dharma of samsara and nirvana can be found, or if they do not exist, then why say "the pillar is not empty"? This has no necessity or function. In the conventional truth, repeating "pillar, pillar" twice is merely ignorance of terms and expressions, and only contradicts the meaning, without any purpose. This also contradicts one's own commitment. If pillars and so on are not empty of themselves, that is, not empty of their own nature, then while their own nature exists, because they are empty of other things to be refuted, such as true establishment, it is contradictory to not accept other-emptiness but to accept self-emptiness. Since there are no other different things to be refuted in the appearance of pillars and so on, if they are empty of their own nature, then it is also contradictory to accept that the pillar is not empty of itself. Secondly, in general, "by others" is explained by four verses and two lines. In general, no matter which proponent of tenets, whether early or late opponents, the nature of reality, nirvana, etc., are not empty of themselves, while the objects to be refuted, samsara, etc., are empty of others, this does not necessarily determine that the nature of reality, etc., are empty of their own nature. Because these are the subject and its nature, appearance and its emptiness, they are different. For example, a horse is not a cow, and a cow is not a horse, so the horse seen by unmistaken direct perception is completely established, even if it is known that it is not established because another cow is not seen on it, merely excluding cows does not necessarily determine that the horse is also empty of its own nature. Because these two are unrelated and different, because these two are not the subject and its nature, not dependent arising and emptiness, nor skillful means and what arises from skillful means.
Chinese
因此，空性缘起双运和显空无别的意义什么也没有。因此，仅仅见到马本身，对于见到牛是空性的有什么好处呢？对于没有见到牛是空性的又有什么损害呢？既没有好处也没有损害。因此，自性不空的涅槃等等，和自性空的轮回等等，也不能成为有法和法性，就像马本身空于牛，或者瓶子和兔角没有有法和法性的意义一样。因此，显现和空性无别或双运，以及有寂轮回和寂灭涅槃二者平等性，所说的那样，在这个宗派里是不行的，在任何情况下都没有，例如，存在的马和不存在的牛，或者瓶子和兔角，没有双运和平等性的意义一样。也就是说，像这样，水中的月亮明显地显现，说这本身不是天空真正的月亮，天空的月亮是空性的，而水中的月亮本身清晰地显现，这二者如果是双运，那又如何呢？如果是这样，那么这种显空双运，即使是聪明愚笨的人也很容易理解，愚笨的牧牛人也会理解，牛不是马，或者空于马，聪明愚笨的人都知道，牛显现，也是聪明愚笨的人都亲眼所见，如果是这样，那么对于这样的证悟，说非常稀有，这样的赞叹，伟大的世尊佛陀等等怎么会说呢？不应该说。第二，因此，自己的等等，用五段偈颂和三句来表示。如所说的那样，因此，对于宁玛派自己远离宗派错误的垢染的清净承诺来说，例如，水中的月亮的显现，用正确的理智来观察和分析，水中的月亮本身，无论内外其他任何地方，都找不到丝毫的自性，所以明明是空性的，却显现为水中的月亮，在亲眼见到的时候，水中的月亮远离了存在不存在等等的一切戏论，虽然是无遮，但因为缘起不灭，所以能够显现，像这样，包括显有轮回涅槃的一切法，自性是空性的，和自性显现或存在，二者本来
English
Therefore, there is no meaning whatsoever in emptiness, dependent arising, union, and the inseparability of appearance and emptiness. Therefore, what benefit is there in seeing the horse itself to seeing the cow as empty? What harm is there in not seeing it? It does not do any good or harm. Therefore, things like nirvana that are not empty in their own nature, and things like samsara that are empty in their own nature, cannot be valid as subjects and predicates, just as a horse itself being empty of a cow, or a vase and a rabbit's horn, have no meaning as subjects and predicates. Therefore, that the two, appearance and emptiness, are inseparable or united, and that samsara and nirvana are equal, as stated, is not valid in this system, and is in no way possible. For example, just as there is no meaning of union and equality in an existing horse and a non-existing cow, or a vase and a rabbit's horn. That is, like this, when the moon in the water appears manifestly, saying that this is not the real moon in the sky, that the sky moon is empty, and that the water moon itself appears clearly, if these two are union, then how is it? If it is so, then such an appearance-emptiness union is easy to understand even for the wise and foolish, even a foolish cowherd will understand that a cow is not a horse, or is empty of a horse, which the wise and foolish all know, and that a cow appears, which the wise and foolish all see manifestly, if that is so, then how could the great master, including the Buddha, say such praise as "This realization is extremely wonderful!"? It is not appropriate to say. Secondly, therefore, "one's own," etc., is shown by five verses and three lines. As it is shown, therefore, for the Nyingma school's own pure commitment, which is free from the stain of doctrinal error, for example, when the appearance of the moon in the water is examined and analyzed with correct reasoning, the moon in the water itself, whether inside, outside, or elsewhere, cannot be found to have even the slightest bit of its own nature, so it is clearly empty, but it appears as the moon in the water. When it is seen manifestly, the moon in the water is free from all elaborations such as existence and non-existence, and although it is a non-affirming negation, it can appear because dependent arising is not interrupted. In this way, all phenomena, including appearance, existence, samsara, and nirvana, are empty of their own nature, and their own nature appears or exists, the two are originally
Chinese
如同火和热一般不可分割地存在，对于凡夫俗子的心识来说难以理解，似乎是矛盾的。但在这里，空性和缘起，或者显现和空性，不仅不矛盾，而且像水和湿气一样不可分割，或者说，看到二者双运，这真是太稀奇了！用惊叹的语言，伟大的智者、佛陀薄伽梵以及他的殊胜心子们，异口同声地赞叹，广散鲜花，并特意宣说。如经中所说：由于无法用离言的道路来表示，如是法性犹如虚空。心和意的运行完全止息，至高无上，极其稀有，是殊胜的智慧。又如圣者龙树所说：诸法知是空，业果从缘生，此稀有中稀，此奇妙中奇。等等，对值得赞叹的至高者也作了极大的赞颂。如此，一切法自始就存在于双运实相的体性中，因此，从体性空性的角度来衡量或确定，轮回和涅槃所包含的一切法，没有丝毫以自性不空而成立的，因此，可以说一切法皆无，或者说是空性。即便如此，在那个无或空性的无立足点或空立足点没有丧失的情况下，缘起的显现是任何人都无法阻挡的自发显现。由于显现的方式可以显现为任何事物，所以从缘起的显现方面来衡量，在那个显现的显现方式或显现状态没有丧失的情况下，本来就安住于无根无基的大空性中，因此，法界和智慧是无二无别的任运自成。色即是空，空即是色，色不异空，空不异色。如是说。因此，双运大平等，显空无别，远离一切戏论的实相，对于柱子和涅槃等有法和法性，说这是空，对于实有和轮回等所破之法，说这是由这个或那个所空，以及这是显现世俗的法，这是空性胜义的部分。
English
That which exists indivisibly like fire and heat, seems contradictory because it is not contained in the minds of ordinary beings, but here, emptiness and dependent arising, or appearance and emptiness, are not only not contradictory, but like water and moisture, they are indivisible, or rather, seeing them as a union, this is truly amazing! With words of wonder, the great scholars, the Buddha Bhagavan and his supreme heart sons, unanimously praised, scattering flowers widely, and especially proclaimed. As it says in the sutra: Because it cannot be expressed by the path of words, suchness, the nature of phenomena, is like the sky. The movement of mind and intellect is completely abandoned, supreme, extremely rare, is the supreme wisdom. And as the noble Nagarjuna said: Knowing that all phenomena are empty, and that karma and its results arise from conditions, this is the most rare of the rare, the most wonderful of the wonderful. And so on, even the supreme one worthy of praise is greatly praised. Thus, since all phenomena have existed from the beginning in the nature of union, therefore, if measured or determined from the aspect of the emptiness of essence, all phenomena included in samsara and nirvana, there is not even a little that is established as not being empty by its own essence, therefore, it can be said that all phenomena are non-existent, or that they are emptiness. Even so, while that non-existence or the foothold of emptiness is not lost, the appearance of dependent arising is a spontaneous appearance that cannot be prevented by anyone. Since the way of appearance can appear as anything, if measured from the aspect of the appearance of dependent arising, while the way of appearance or the state of appearance is not lost, it has always been abiding in the great emptiness that is without foundation or root, therefore, the realm of reality and wisdom are spontaneously accomplished as being non-dual. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form, form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. As it is said. Therefore, the great equality of union, the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness, the reality that is free from all elaboration, for phenomena such as pillars and nirvana, it is said that this is empty, for objects to be refuted such as true existence and samsara, it is said that this is empty of this or that, and that this is the phenomenon of apparent conventionality, this is the part of ultimate emptiness.