Chinese
而且，如果对方想要舍弃我执，那么实际上就必须舍弃微细的我执，因此说不想要区分粗细而舍弃是没有意义的。这些话在注释中说，对方不想要仅仅通过舍弃显现就能解脱，像那样推论会变得没有关联，对此非常生气，似乎是竭尽全力说了这些反驳。但是，那个和这个反驳并不相同，如果说仅仅舍弃烦恼的显现就能解脱，那么会立刻变成那样。因为仅仅舍弃显现就能解脱，无论从量还是从承诺上都无法成立，所以那个理由无法成立所要证明的。如果抛出通过证悟粗大的无我而不能舍弃微细的我执的推论，即使不承认不能舍弃微细的我执，也有可以展示通过量成立的道理的缘故。不说“如果舍弃显现就能解脱”作为理由，而是说想要通过证悟无常等十六行相的道来解脱作为理由，然后说抛出仅仅舍弃显现的当下就能解脱的推论。即使那样认为，那个推论也因为周遍无论从承诺还是从量上都无法成立，所以会变成带有回答的。即使那样，也因为和下面根本中的“即使没有烦恼”等意义难以关联等等的缘故。现在寺庙里的学者们看到这种辩论的口头禅，如果不是为了在别人面前展示趣味，那么谁都容易明白其中的深浅，而且第五世达赖喇嘛的教诲也被他们看作是甚深的口诀，就像那样做吧，如果道理行不通，即使没有彻底的失败也很美。如果道理的象征迟钝，即使发出勇敢的声音也是羞耻。发出像龙吟一样的花言巧语的所依，看着空虚的三界的石雨。对于道理的回答充满自信，即使能够创造很多驳斥的语言之箭，不在适当的时候不说无聊的话，这不也是和高尚的行为相符吗？也这样说了。还有他说，在汉文注释中也说，将业的能力安立在阿罗汉上，因为和根本的上下文相违背。宗喀巴大师没有像那样作为自己的宗派，经典是辨别是否符合字面意义的基础，必须用无垢的道理来确定
English
Moreover, if the opponent wants to abandon self-grasping, then it is actually necessary to abandon subtle self-grasping, so it is meaningless to say that they do not want to abandon by distinguishing between coarse and subtle. These words in the commentary say that the opponent does not want to be liberated by merely abandoning manifestation, and such a consequence would become irrelevant. They were very angry about this and seemed to have made these refutations with all their might. However, that and this refutation are not the same. If it is said that liberation is achieved by merely abandoning the manifestation of afflictions, then it will immediately become so. Because liberation by merely abandoning manifestation cannot be established by either valid cognition or acceptance, that reason cannot establish what is to be proven. If the inference is thrown that subtle self-grasping is not abandoned by realizing coarse selflessness, even if it is not admitted that subtle self-grasping is not abandoned, there is reason to show that it can be established by valid cognition. Instead of stating "if liberation is achieved by abandoning manifestation" as the reason, it is stated that the desire to be liberated by the path of realizing the sixteen aspects of impermanence etc. is stated as the reason, and then it is said that the inference is thrown that liberation is achieved immediately by merely abandoning manifestation. Even if it is thought that way, that inference will become with an answer because the pervasion cannot be established by either acceptance or valid cognition. Even so, it is difficult to relate to the meaning of "even without afflictions" etc. in the root below. Nowadays, when scholars in monasteries see this kind of argumentative rhetoric, if it is not for the sake of showing off humor in front of others, then anyone can easily understand the depth of it, and the teachings of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama are also seen by them as profound instructions, so do it like that. If reason does not work, it is beautiful even without complete failure. If the symbol of reason is dull, it is shameful even if a brave voice is raised. The basis for uttering flowery words like a dragon's roar, look at the stone rain of emptiness in the three realms. Confidence in the answer of reason is firm, and even though many weapons of refutation can be created, not speaking nonsense at inappropriate times, is this not in accordance with noble behavior? So it was said. Also, he said that in the Chinese commentaries, applying the power of karma to the Arhat is contrary to the context of the root. Je Tsongkhapa did not make it his own system like that, the scriptures are the basis for distinguishing whether or not they conform to the literal meaning, and they must be determined by immaculate reason.