English
If the essence appears and is not empty, then applying emptiness of other dharmas to it, it becomes a union like the appearance of a cow's horn and the emptiness of a rabbit's horn combined. In that case, the meaning of one's own essence being empty while appearing, and appearing while being empty, is that form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. The four, form, etc., cannot possibly appear on a vase. If one thinks they can appear on what is truly established, how can there be appearance when the basis of true establishment is not established? Because it doesn't exist, saying "emptiness" means pure emptiness separated from appearance, and saying "appearance" means pure appearance separated from emptiness, falling into the extreme of permanence. Therefore, all dharmas are not beyond existence and non-existence by nature, but must rely on other emptinesses; all conventional dharmas are not beyond the extremes of permanence and annihilation by their own nature, but the aspects of appearance fall into the extreme of permanence, requiring reliance on the emptiness of other meanings to dispel the extreme of permanence; emptiness falls into the extreme of annihilation, unable to dispel it by its own nature, but requiring reliance on other conventional dharmas, this is the aspect of non-extremism. If that's the case, it's as unrelated as Devadatta dying and a sacrifice not dying and reviving him. What good does the emptiness of other dharmas do to what is not empty in its own essence? It's not like that. If one thinks that the essence of a vase is unreal, how can it not be empty? Even if a vase is unreal, if it is not emptiness, then unreal and emptiness become different meanings. Secondly, when showing that birth is merely dependent arising, with the key point of not being born from the four extremes, it shows that all dharmas are merely dependent arising, and the reasoning of dependent arising cuts off all wrong views, these are the two praises. First, because in the way described above, external and internal things are not born from no cause, the cause of Ishvara, time, particles, nature, Purusha, desireless son, etc., and from self, other, or both, therefore, relying only on these causes and conditions, these fruits arise. So, how is it determined that ignorance causes karma, etc., and that sprouts arise from seeds, etc.? It is like this: for example, a realist thinks that there is other-birth because it is dependent arising. But this is not understood, because it does not arise from the four extremes.
Chinese
因为那个生起，所以是缘起。即使从四边中的任何一边生起，也不能成立是缘起。仅仅是缘起，那个要点就能阻止从四边生起，像这样互相理解要点非常重要。一切法自性空，所以没有损害，现在正在空的同时显现。如果以前不是空，现在通过观察，像用锤子砸碎瓶子一样变空了，就不知道还能不能显现，但正在显现的这个是空。要相信正在空的同时显现。第二，因为依靠这个而产生这个，仅仅通过这个道理，事物依靠而产生。从自他产生等等，以及有无、常断等等的恶劣分别念，是不能被考察的。因此，缘起仅仅是因的这个道理，能够斩断执边的恶见之网。第三，确定用理智分析的结果，分为显示分析的结果和说明分析那个结果的原因是必要的两种。第一，分为分别念止息的原因和具备那个原因分别念止息，那个显示为分析的结果两种。第一，如果执边的分别念事物自性存在，那么就会依靠它而产生。因为事物自性如何不存在已经完全分析完毕，所以，事物不存在，执边的恶劣分别念这些不会产生，例如没有柴就没有火一样。第二，不了解像前面所说的法性，凡夫俗子们被执边的分别念束缚。像这样通达法性，不颠倒分别的瑜伽士圣者们就会解脱。因为执边的分别念的执着方式的对境全部遮止，分别念止息，这是圣者们从 中观论典中分析的结果，智者们这样说，就像涂了眼药，视力恢复一样。第二，分析真如没有过失，所以需要分析，以及有功德，所以需要分析。
English
Because of that arising, it is dependent arising. Even if it arises from any of the four extremes, it cannot be established as dependent arising. The very essence of dependent arising is that it can prevent arising from the four extremes. It is very important to understand each other's key points in this way. All phenomena are empty of inherent existence, so there is no harm, and they appear while being empty. If they were not empty before, but now become empty through analysis, like smashing a vase with a hammer, it is not known whether they can still appear, but this appearing is empty. Believe in appearing while being empty. Second, because this arises in dependence on that, objects arise completely in dependence on this mere reasoning. Arising from self and other, and the bad thoughts of existence and non-existence, permanence and annihilation, etc., cannot be examined. Therefore, this reasoning of dependent arising, which is merely a cause, cuts off all the nets of bad views of clinging to extremes. Third, identifying the result of reasoning analysis includes two parts: showing the result of analysis and explaining why it is necessary to analyze the cause of that result. The first part includes two aspects: the reason for the cessation of thoughts and the fact that the cessation of thoughts with that reason is shown as the result of analysis. First, if the thoughts of clinging to extremes are inherently existent, then they will arise in dependence on that. Since it has been completely analyzed how things are not inherently existent, therefore, these bad thoughts of clinging to extremes do not arise without things, just as there is no fire without fuel. Second, those who do not understand the nature of reality as explained earlier, ordinary people are bound by thoughts of clinging to extremes. Yogis and noble ones who understand the nature of reality in this way and do not think perversely will be liberated. Because all the objects of clinging to extremes are completely blocked, and thoughts are stopped, this is what the wise say is the result of analysis from the Madhyamaka scriptures, just like applying eye medicine and restoring vision. Second, analyzing suchness has no faults, so it needs to be analyzed, and because it has merits, it needs to be analyzed.
Chinese
二、第一，圣者在中观论著中以理智作了极多的辨析，这不是因为贪执争论而要压倒他人，而是因为通达了正确的意义，为了使众生获得解脱，才善巧地阐明了真如。如果辨析并阐述真如，那么与真如不符的其他宗派，因与实相不符而无法立足，像黑暗一样自然消亡，也没有过失。第二，对于论著不应偏袒执着，说“这是我的”，为什么呢？因为，对于某种观点的承诺，如果执着于实有，就会对其产生强烈的贪恋，并对与之不符的产生憎恨。这种分别念，仍然是执着于所贪恋和所憎恨为真实的分别念。而在这里，因为证悟了无实有，一切分别念都已止息，哪里还会有自方和他方呢？执着于某一方是分别念，而这在这里是不存在的。因此，对于自己的观点产生贪恋，以及对于他人的观点产生嗔恨的束缚性的分别念是不存在的，因此，像那样对于自方产生贪恋，对于他方产生嗔恨已经完全消除，以理智辨别什么是真实的意义，就能迅速从一切分别念中解脱，因为没有偏袒执着。第二，以理智确定人无我，其中分为想要解脱者首先必须破除我，以及阐述破除我的理智两部分。第一，贪欲等烦恼，生老病死等一切过患，都是由于对我和我所具有自性而执着的坏聚见，从这种见解中产生，这是明智的智慧所能见到的。如果坏聚见产生作用，那么它的所缘，我，就被认为是坏聚见或者我执的对境。因此，想要解脱的瑜伽士，就应该破除作为对境的我，如果不破除它，就无法阻止对它的执着，只要执着于所贪恋的对境存在，我执就会产生作用，如果驳倒了它，执着就会自然而然地消失。对实有的执着被赋予了烦恼的名称，因为一切愚昧都是烦恼。
English
Two. First, the noble ones, in the treatises of Madhyamaka, made extremely many analyses with reason. This was not done out of attachment to debate and to overpower others, but because they understood the correct meaning, and in order to liberate beings, they skillfully explained the suchness itself. If, by analyzing and explaining the suchness, other doctrines that are not in accordance with the suchness appear unable to stand because they do not accord with reality, and thus naturally perish like darkness, there is no fault. Second, there should be no partiality or attachment to the treatises, saying, "This is mine." Why? Because, if there is an acceptance of a view that focuses on something as real, one will develop a strong attachment to it and hatred for what is not in accordance with it. That thought is still a thought that holds what one is attached to and what one hates as true. But here, because one has realized that there is no reality, all thoughts have ceased. Where, then, are self and other sides? Holding to a side is a thought, and that does not exist here. Therefore, the binding thought of attachment to one's own view and, similarly, anger toward another's view does not exist. Therefore, having completely eliminated attachment to one's own side and anger toward others, examining with reason what is the true meaning will quickly lead to liberation from all thoughts, because there is no partiality or attachment. Second, establishing the selflessness of persons through reasoning, which is divided into two parts: the way in which those who desire liberation must first refute the self, and the explanation of the reasoning that refutes it. First, all faults such as desire and other afflictions, birth, old age, sickness, and death, arise from the view of the aggregates as inherently existent, which is the grasping of "I" and "mine" as inherently existent. This is seen by clear wisdom. If the view of the aggregates takes hold, then its object, the self, is conceived as the object of the view of the aggregates or the grasping of "I." Therefore, the yogi who desires liberation should refute the self as an object. If it is not refuted, the grasping of it cannot be stopped. As long as the object of attachment is perceived to exist, the grasping of self will take hold. If it is refuted, the grasping will naturally cease. The grasping of truth is given the name of affliction, because all ignorance is affliction.