Chinese
如果问原因。虽然是真实的，但你是否认为冷黑铁中自然具备火的自性因？如果像第二种情况，那么与硬石摩擦的努力就变得毫无意义，因为没有原因就不依赖于条件。如果像第一种情况，那么冷黑铁上燃烧的显现作用就会无法成立，因为没有舍弃火的物质。如果承认，那么这里也是一样。如果说离戏的誓言破灭，那么冷的誓言就破灭了。如果说因为没有承认单独的冷，所以理由不成立，那么这里也一样，因为也没有承认离戏。如果说凡是没有遮止戏论本身在胜义中是相违的，就像在世俗中一样，那么你的火的自相没有遮止本身与冷是相违的，就像火本身一样。或者，胜义空性自身是空还是不空？如果像第二种情况，那么就变成了暂时的空性，因为没有断除一边的戏论。如果像第一种情况，那么空性就变成了实物，因为被自己的立宗所抛弃，这将会变成自相矛盾。第三，真谛无别也有四种：体性、词义、分类、安立。第一，体性：就像其他小乘声闻乘一样，不认为显现中没有包含空性的显现本身是显现的自性。就像中观派一样，不认为空性中没有包含显现的空性是唯一的。这里，显空等性的真谛，所知真谛无别，是远离心识对境的。为了成立它，有正文和辩论消除偶然穿插的争论。第一部分有三点：从圣言量来说，如是说：真谛二者无差别，幻化的喜悦之相无有异。以及口诀：显空无别瑜伽之终点。理证是：瓶子，是法，是真谛无别，因为没有落入显空任何一边。如果说理由不成立，那么是究竟的显现，还是究竟的空性？如果像第一种情况，圣言量中说：例如从石头的实物中，磨成粉末之后，在风中扬起，它就没有任何自性。而且，先前的离一多也造成损害。如果像第二种情况，那么现在显
English
If asked for the reason. Although it is true, do you think that cold black iron naturally possesses the self-nature cause of fire? If it is like the second case, then the effort of rubbing against hard stone becomes meaningless, because without a cause, it does not depend on conditions. If it is like the first case, then the manifested function of burning on cold black iron will not be established, because the substance of fire has not been abandoned. If you admit it, then it is the same here. If you say that the vow of non-elaboration is broken, then the vow of cold is broken. If you say that the reason is not established because you have not admitted the single cold, then it is the same here, because you have not admitted non-elaboration either. If you say that whatever has not prevented elaboration itself is contradictory in the ultimate sense, just like in the conventional sense, then your self-character of fire not preventing itself is contradictory to cold, just like fire itself. Or, is ultimate emptiness itself empty or not empty? If it is like the second case, then it becomes a temporary emptiness, because the elaboration of one side has not been cut off. If it is like the first case, then emptiness becomes a real thing, because it is abandoned by its own proposition, which will become self-contradictory. Third, the truth of non-duality also has four aspects: nature, definition, classification, and establishment. First, the nature: Just like other Hinayana Shravakas, they do not consider the appearance in which emptiness is not included as the self-nature of appearance. Just like the Madhyamikas, they do not consider the emptiness in which appearance is not included as the only emptiness. Here, the truth of the equality of appearance and emptiness, the truth of knowable non-duality, is far from the object of mental consciousness. To establish it, there is the main text and the refutation of incidental debates. The first part has three points: From the Agamas, it is said: The two truths are inseparable, the form of illusory joy is not different. And the oral instruction: The end of yoga is the inseparability of appearance and emptiness. The reasoning is: A pot, a dharma, is the truth of non-duality, because it does not fall into either side of appearance and emptiness. If you say that the reason is not established, then is it ultimate appearance or ultimate emptiness? If it is like the first case, it is said in the Agamas: For example, from the substance of a stone, after grinding it into powder, if it is blown in the wind, it has no self-nature. Moreover, the previous separation of one and many also causes harm. If it is like the second case, then now appear
Chinese
显现是清楚的。不是的，因为在错觉中显现的是之前的意义。如果用理智分析，因为不住留，所以一切法都是空性的边际。如果这样说，那就是无二无别。有人说，对理由有怀疑。是因为有理由而怀疑，还是因为没有理由而怀疑？如果是前者，那么对于生起定解也会怀疑。如果是后者，是因为有联系而怀疑，还是因为没有联系而怀疑？如果是后者，那么眼睛也会怀疑声音好不好听。如果承认，那么在声音的境域中，没有怀疑和不怀疑的考察是不相同的。如果是前者，是同一个本体，还是从那产生？如果是同一个本体，那么造作也会怀疑无常。如果是从那产生，那么烟也会怀疑火。如果说周遍没有成立，那么哪里显现什么，没有和空性的任何一方相遇，就被无二无别所周遍，就像水中的月亮一样。总之，不舍弃显现，从显现的边际解脱。不舍弃空性，不执着空性的边际。两者都不舍弃，直接的寂静。说无二无别，也只是为了断除对不同的执着。也远离了执着于彻底断除的无二无别。远离了思维的对境。如是说：为了遣除不是那样的执着，在第二个名言中，超越了思维言说。这是第二个定义。因为显现和空性任何一方都没有截断，所以是无二无别。如果分类有四种：在一个上没有二的无二无别，唯识宗的所取能取二取空的自证自明；遮止二边的无二无别，中观宗如幻化的不是名称的胜义谛；观待于知识的名称无二无别，极不居住的断除的真如；本体无二无别，密宗的显空双运的宗义。第四个是超越的方式：下部的显空成为轮番交替，所以本体成了诽谤。这里显空同时截断，所以没有成为诽谤，因此本体超越。如是说：阿是空性和非空性，中观宗也没有对境。又是下部者的无二无别，最终在行持的种类上成立，所希望的相可以执取。这里因为远离了思维的对境，所以相没有在一个方面，因此用相超越。
English
Manifestation is clear. No, because in illusion what appears is the meaning of the previous. If analyzed with reason, since it does not abide, all phenomena are indeed the limit of emptiness. If so, then that itself is non-dual. Some say, "There is doubt about the reason." Is the doubt because there is a reason, or because there is no reason? If it is the former, then there would also be doubt about generating certainty. If it is the latter, is the doubt because there is a connection, or because there is no connection? If it is the latter, then the eyes would also doubt whether the sound is pleasant or unpleasant. If admitted, then in the realm of sound, the examination of whether there is doubt or no doubt is not the same. If it is the former, is it the same entity, or does it arise from that? If it is the same entity, then fabrication would also doubt impermanence. If it arises from that, then smoke would also doubt fire. If it is said that pervasion is not established, then wherever something appears, not meeting with any side of emptiness, is pervaded by non-duality, like the moon in water. In short, without abandoning appearance, liberation from the limit of appearance. Without abandoning emptiness, not grasping the limit of emptiness. Without abandoning both, direct quiescence. Saying non-duality is merely to sever attachment to difference. It is also separated from clinging to the utterly severed non-duality. Separated from the object of thought. As it is said: "In order to dispel clinging to what is not that, in the second expression, it transcends thought and speech." This is the second definition. Because neither appearance nor emptiness is cut off, it is non-dual. If classified, there are four types: non-duality where there is no two in one, the self-awareness and self-illumination of the Mind-Only school, where the object and subject are empty; non-duality that negates both extremes, the ultimate truth of the Middle Way school, which is like an illusion and not a category; non-duality as a category in relation to knowledge, the suchness that is negated by the exclusion of the utterly non-abiding; non-duality of essence, the tenet of the Secret Mantra school's union of appearance and emptiness. The fourth is the method of transcendence: the appearance and emptiness of the lower become alternating, so the essence becomes defamation. Here, appearance and emptiness are cut off simultaneously, so it does not become defamation, therefore the essence transcends. As it is said: "A is emptiness and non-emptiness, the Middle Way also has no object." Again, the non-duality of the lower ones, ultimately established in the aspect of practice, the desired characteristic can be grasped. Here, because it is separated from the object of thought, the characteristic is not in one aspect, therefore it transcends with characteristics.
Chinese
如是说，为了遣除彼之外的执着，在第二种名言中，已超越思与言。又，下部者的显空自性已成有无之区分，而此处以显空无别自性来融合，如是说，显空无别瑜伽之边际。关于顺便提出的辩论反驳是：如果那样，无别的行境与远离，是否能以闻思来确定？若如前者，则远离心识的行境而退失；若如后者，则如何成立证悟与未证悟的定解？虽是如此，然不依赖于自相证悟之边际，如渡河之船。证悟之智慧依赖于谁并不相违，然以言说甚深之语词引导，从续部中证悟所说甚深之义，如是说，对于无有文字的空性之法，何者能方便听闻而宣说，于不变者上假立增益，听闻并受持。如是宣说。又，对于远离心识行境者，有无远离之证悟定解？若如后者，则不为量所成立，因为无有定解之故。若如前者，则定解本身是错乱还是不错乱？若如后者，因为与义相符而执持，则已超出心识的行境。若如前者，则成为虚妄的增益，因为是心识错乱之境，如虚空中见毛发飘落。答：欲衡量为有定解且不错乱之境。若说已成为心识之行境，则应观察，是在确定之时未远离，还是覆盖之自性未远离？前者不成其为理由，后者不成其为周遍，因为证悟之自性是任何心识之边际皆不能了知者。又，显空无别者，在显现无有生灭之时，因为与彼本体为一，则空性生灭或不生灭？答：应说显空生灭之本体不生灭。若那样，则显空成为非一，因为是生灭与不生灭之相违之法。若问，仅仅如此，在无常之念刹那生灭之时
English
As it is said, in order to dispel attachment to other than that, in the second conventional truth, it has transcended thought and expression. Furthermore, the lower ones' nature of appearance and emptiness has become a distinction of existence and non-existence, but here, it is integrated with the nature of indivisible appearance and emptiness, as it is said, the limit of the yoga of indivisible appearance and emptiness. The refutation of the debate that arises in passing is: If that is the case, can that which is indivisible and separate from the object of experience be determined by hearing and thinking or not? If it is like the former, then it is lost by being separate from the object of mind; if it is like the latter, then how is the definite understanding of realization and non-realization established? Although it is true, it does not depend on the limit of self-characterized realization, like a boat crossing a river. It is not contradictory to rely on the wisdom that realizes, but it is guided by the words that express the profound, and from the continuum, the meaning of the profound that is expressed is realized, as it is said, for the Dharma of emptiness without letters, whoever makes it easy to hear and proclaims it, imputing onto the unchanging, listens and takes it. As it is proclaimed. Furthermore, for those who are separate from the object of mind, is there or is there not a definite understanding of realizing separation? If it is like the latter, then it is not established by valid cognition, because there is no definite understanding. If it is like the former, then is that definite understanding mistaken or not mistaken? If it is like the latter, because it holds in accordance with the meaning, it has gone beyond the object of mind. If it is like the former, then it becomes a false imputation, because it is the object of the mind's confusion, like seeing hairs falling in the sky. Answer: It is desired to measure as a state of having definite understanding and not being mistaken. If it is said that it has become the object of mind, then it should be examined, is it said that it has not separated at the time of determination, or is it said that the nature of covering has not separated? The former does not establish the reason, and the latter does not establish the pervasion, because the self-character of realization is that which cannot be known by any limit of mind. Furthermore, the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness, when appearance has no arising or ceasing, because it is one in essence with that, does emptiness arise and cease or not arise and cease? Answer: It should be said that the essence of appearance and emptiness arising and ceasing does not arise and cease. If that is the case, then appearance and emptiness become non-one, because they are contradictory phenomena of arising and ceasing and not arising and ceasing. If asked, just like that, at the time of the momentary arising and ceasing of impermanent thought