English
This is just the difference in introduction. If you ask what is the need, then, here, the appearance of samsara and nirvana is like an illusion, which exists unfailingly due to dependent origination. Therefore, as long as the clinging to the apprehended and the apprehender has not dissolved into the dharmadhatu, this appearance will not cease for sentient beings, and it will bring benefit and harm. Therefore, in order to pacify the suffering of oneself and others, and in order to obtain benefit and happiness, one strives on this path. Here, it is not because of clinging to the path and the fruit as being real, but like conjuring up a great army to be freed from the fear of the enemy, just as one strives to awaken someone who is suffering in sleep. So, what do yogis and ordinary people argue about regarding things that appear to be the same to both? It is not arguing about whether or not things appear to exist, because there is no Madhyamaka who denies the nature of appearance. When seeing things, worldly people think that what is seen is real, that it is established in the ultimate truth, because they do not think that appearance is unreal, having the nature of illusion, so there is an argument between them. Second, the elimination of debate, divided into: the elimination of debate about the emptiness of what is said; the elimination of debate about the Mahayana of what can be said; and the summary of these meanings in three parts. The first part is divided into: the elimination of debate about the base, path, and fruit in three parts. The first part is divided into: the elimination of debate about ordinary worldly people, realists, and Mind-Only in three parts. First, ordinary worldly people think like this: Form, etc., are established by the direct perception of the eye, etc., so why is it said that it is not real? Answer: To say that form, etc., are seen by direct perception is only a common worldly saying that has not been examined. If it is examined and analyzed, it is not established by valid cognition, because it will be refuted by analyzing the encounter and non-encounter of the sense faculty and the object, as will be explained. Since this is the case, then the established form, etc., is like the body of a woman being impure and impermanent, etc., but in the world it is commonly called pure and permanent, etc., which is false. Second, it is divided into two types of eliminating debate: through scripture and through reasoning. First, the realists think like this: Things are real, because the Buddha said that the base aggregates, elements, and sources exist, and the characteristic of the aggregates is also momentary.
Chinese
如果有人认为这是因为（佛）在经文中这样说过，那么，佛陀是考虑到表象而这样说的，目的是为了让那些无法领悟空性的世俗之人，逐渐进入正确的意义，所以才显示事物是存在的。正如佛陀所说：‘佛陀说“我”和“我的”，是出于某种需要。’同样，佛陀说“蕴”、“处”、“界”，也是出于某种需要。’像这样。在真实的意义上，这些蕴等等并不是刹那成立的，因为它们既不是一，也不是多，没有生灭，怎么会有刹那成立呢？根本没有。他们说：如果刹那不是胜义谛，那么在世俗谛中也无法安立，这样一来，就变成了既不是胜义谛也不是世俗谛了。那么，在世俗谛中如何相违呢？通过理证和教证两种方式相违。首先，世俗谛是共同显现、允许存在，并且是孩童也能使用的东西。但是，世间之人认为早上的瓶子到下午也不会坏，是常有的，并不认为是刹那生灭的。既然他们无法看到刹那生灭，那就不是世俗谛。而且，世尊不也说过，看到刹那生灭是看到事物的真实情况，是见到真谛吗？如果这样，那么，虽然世间之人并没有认为瓶子等是常有的，但由于相似的其他事物不断产生，导致他们一直误以为是常有的。因此，即使世间凡夫的自生智慧无法认识到刹那生灭，但通达名言之理的瑜伽士们能够看到并确信事物是刹那生灭的。所以，刹那生灭是就世俗表象而言的，因此没有不属于二谛的过失。相对于世间凡夫执著常有的心识来说，见到刹那生灭就是见到真相，因为这是见到了名言的实相。如果不是这样，如果相对于世间来说，见到真相和没有见到真相没有区别，那么，世间之人认为女人是清净的这种想法，也会妨碍他们习惯于不净，并确信女人是不清净的这种认识，因为这两种心识在见到真相和没有见到真相上没有区别。即使如此，见到不净会妨碍认为清净的执著，但反过来却永远不会妨碍。第二，从理证的角度进行观察
English
If one thinks that it is because (the Buddha) said so in the scriptures, then the Buddha said so considering only the appearance, and the purpose is to gradually lead those worldly people who cannot realize emptiness into the correct meaning, so he showed that things exist. Just as the Buddha said, 'The Buddha said "I" and "mine" out of some need.' Similarly, the Buddha said "aggregates," "sources," and "elements" out of some need.' Like this. In the true sense, these aggregates and so on are not established in an instant, because they are neither one nor many, and there is no birth or death, how can there be establishment in an instant? There is none at all. They say: If the momentariness is not the ultimate truth, then it cannot be established even in the conventional truth, so it will become neither the ultimate truth nor the conventional truth. Then, how does it contradict in the conventional truth? It contradicts in two ways: through reasoning and scripture. First, the conventional truth is something that is commonly manifested, allowed to exist, and can be used even by children. However, worldly people think that the vase in the morning will not be broken in the afternoon, it is constant, and they do not think it is momentary. Since they cannot see the momentariness, it is not the conventional truth. Moreover, didn't the Blessed One also say that seeing the momentariness is seeing the true situation of things, is seeing the truth? If so, although worldly people do not think that vases and so on are constant, they have always mistakenly thought that they are constant because similar other things are constantly produced. Therefore, even if the self-born wisdom of worldly ordinary people cannot recognize the momentariness, the yogis who understand the principle of expression can see and believe that things are momentary. Therefore, momentariness is in terms of conventional appearance, so there is no fault of not belonging to the two truths. Relative to the minds of worldly ordinary people who cling to permanence, seeing momentariness is seeing the truth, because this is seeing the reality of expression. If not, if there is no difference between seeing the truth and not seeing the truth relative to the world, then the idea that women are pure will also hinder them from getting used to impurity and believing that women are impure, because there is no difference between these two minds in seeing the truth and not seeing the truth. Even so, seeing impurity will hinder the clinging to purity, but the reverse will never hinder. Second, observe from the perspective of reasoning
Chinese
如果以幻象般不真实的佛陀为供养，为何会产生巨大的功德呢？因为供养如幻象般自性不成立的佛陀，会产生如幻象般的功德。正如你认为供养真实的佛陀会产生真实的功德一样。功德和佛陀在是否真实存在上有所区别，但功德的产生与否并没有区别。再者，如果众生如同幻象，那么幻象的马和牛消失后不会再次出现，死后又怎么会再次产生呢？只要各自显现的因缘聚合，幻象的显现就不会停止。业和烦恼等众生产生的因缘没有停止，众生又怎么不会产生呢？因此，幻象的显现消失后不再产生，是因为因缘的聚合已经改变。而众生即使现在的存在消失，但能将他们推向其他存在的因缘聚合完整，所以相续不会停止。这两者在是否真实存在上并没有区别。即使如此，众生轮回无始无终，时间长久，而幻象没有这样的情况，所以两者并不相同。将这两者视为相同，并不是指在时间长短等方面完全相同，而是指无论时间长短，显现却空无真实的方面是相同的。因此，众生仅仅因为时间长久，怎么能说是真实的呢？即使时间长久，也是因为因缘没有改变，前后不同的存在各自产生，在自性上并没有区别。就像幻象的马和牛等，即使显现一百年，或者仅仅显现一会儿，在不真实上也没有区别。还有其他人这样认为：如果众生和幻化的人一样，那么就像杀死幻化的人也不会产生杀生的实质一样，杀死众生也不会产生杀生的罪过。同样，不予而取，殴打等伤害，以及给予食物衣服等也不会带来利益，因此善恶不会从这些基础上产生。
English
If offering to a Buddha who is unreal like an illusion generates great merit, how is that possible? Because offering to a Buddha who is like an illusion and whose own nature is not established as true, merit like an illusion will arise. It is just as you believe that offering to a real Buddha will generate real merit. The difference lies only in whether merit and the Buddha are established as real or not, but there is no difference in whether merit arises or not. Furthermore, if sentient beings are like illusions, then just as illusory horses and cattle disappear and do not reappear, how is it reasonable that they are born again after death? As long as the causes and conditions for each individual's appearance are assembled, the appearance of the illusion will not cease. If the causes for the birth of sentient beings, such as karma and afflictions, have not ceased, why wouldn't sentient beings be born? Therefore, the reason why the appearance of an illusion ceases and does not reappear is because the assembly of causes has changed. However, even if the present existence of sentient beings ceases, the continuity does not stop because the assembly of causes that propels them to another existence is complete. There is no difference between these two in terms of whether they are established as true or not. Even so, sentient beings have been in samsara without beginning or end for a long time, while illusions do not have such a thing, so the two are not the same. To consider these two as the same is not to say that they are the same in all respects, such as length of time, but rather that they are considered the same in that they appear but are empty of truth, whether the time is long or short. Therefore, how can sentient beings be true simply because they have existed for a long time? Even if it is a long time, it is because the causes have not changed, and there is no difference in the fact that the successive existences are different from each other and do not inherently exist. Just as there is no difference in the fact that illusory horses and cattle, etc., are unreal whether they appear for a hundred years or only for a moment. Furthermore, others may think like this: If sentient beings are like illusory people, then just as killing an illusory person does not result in the act of taking a life, killing sentient beings does not result in the sin of killing. Similarly, taking what is not given, harming through beatings, and benefiting through giving food and clothing will not bring benefit, so good and evil will not arise from these bases.