English
Oh, the Samadhi that enters into one side alone. Immediately following that supreme Dharma, the four Samadhis arise in sequence, and although all phenomena included by the apprehended and the apprehender appear to be without inherent existence, from the way the yogi's experience arises, the experience of not having the apprehended and having a greater component of the appearance of grasping arises, and after the experience of not having both the apprehended and the apprehender, the path of seeing is attained, as stated in the Mahayana scriptures, although it is thought to be so, those with the object of admitting non-truth do not contradict, and those who admit objectless non-elaboration contradict, which no one can prove. Furthermore, in the Ornament of the Sutras, it says, "The complete knowledge of this is five." etc., which are both knowable and the fifth number, there are many, so the classification of the five knowables is not contradictory, and whatever it is, it has become the basis for investigation. Also, the fact that the object does not exist ultimately, but exists conventionally, is inseparable, is the abiding that has abandoned increase and decrease. As it says in the Ornament and the Sublime Continuum, "Here there is nothing to be removed, and there is nothing to be established." And in the Entrance, it says, "From emptiness, everything will arise." etc., although it is the intention of many sutras and tantras, even so, the expression with the repeated "also" and "also" is, we very much agree, the intention of many sutras and tantras. We believe that the nature of emptiness, dependent arising, and union is inseparable, unlike combining the non-existent horns of a rabbit and the existent horns of a cow into a union, therefore we believe that the nature of Dharma, the realm of Dharma, its own essence, abides without increase or decrease, and we also believe that at the time of realizing that, there is no abandonment or establishment, or negation and affirmation. Because all phenomena have not moved from the realm of the emptiness of Dharma-nature, in reality there is no birth, but it is also believed that the phenomenon that appears as birth is not contradictory. In the treatises of other affirming schools, there is no increase or decrease, no abandonment or establishment, and it is difficult to establish that arising from emptiness is also difficult, but for the time being, those reasons have not been elaborated. Also, in the debate letter, it says, "Even so, you will not become Madhyamikas, because there is no abiding in the middle. If you abide there, it will be because you think you are abiding on the edge of non-duality. Even if you abide in a state free from the four extremes, you will become abiding on the edge of nothingness, because you are free from true establishment. Therefore, there is this inference, tru
Chinese
因为遮止安住于无有之边。凡说有者，即是承诺于有边，凡说无者，即是承诺于无边。总之，有和无这二者是边，智者不应安住于中。因为想要那样理解此意。在《摄类学》中说：无处为处，此乃胜者所说之安住。在《庄严经论》中说：因为说了离处和处，如果需要无处，那么同样说了无处，所以力量相等。同样，在《经庄严论》中说：何为无有，彼即是，有之殊胜。于一切相皆不缘，缘乃殊胜。等等，在一切经论中，因为没有遮止有、缘、修、果等。你们没有现量做到远离法界增益损减二者，在那之前就说不是般若波罗蜜多的体性。但大多如“言说不可说，恶劣之禅修，汝将迷惑”一样，进入了吉栗多迦（梵文：Kitaka）的离名之境。也应如是说： 以经续正邪之水藏为鬘， 畏惧而执着于无处之边者， 远离妙慧舟船之殊胜怙主， 无依无怙而执持一无所有。 噫玛，有多少佛法之门， 从大车之无垢理路中， 圆满了道之身体之意造， 此乃一切欲解脱者之唯一道。 也如是赞叹。对此进行回答：你们不会变成中观派，因为没有安住于中。如果安住于彼，则因为想要安住于非二之边，此说没有意义。在名言谛的场合，遣除二边的方式，自他双方都认可。但你认为仅仅如此就是究竟的安住方式。而我们认为仅仅如此不是究竟的安住方式，但依靠它而进入究竟的非名言谛。并且认为非名言谛本身就是究竟的安住方式，如果争论在于此不同之处，那么安住于远离四边的戏论，则安住于非安住之边的过失，以及安住于无边的过失稍微不成立。因为直接说不想要安住于任何一边，所以四边之外的安住处
English
Because it prevents dwelling in the extreme of non-existence. Whatever is said to exist is affirmed to be at the extreme of existence, and whatever is said to be non-existent is affirmed to be at the extreme of non-existence. In short, existence and non-existence are both extremes, and the wise should not dwell even in the middle. Because they want to understand that intention in that way. In the Compendium, it says: 'Non-dwelling is dwelling, this is what the Victorious Ones have said to be dwelling.' And in the Ornament, it says: 'Because it is said to be without dwelling and with dwelling, if non-dwelling is needed, then non-dwelling is also said in the same way, so the power is equal.' Similarly, in the Ornament of the Sutras, it says: 'Whatever is non-existent, that itself is considered the most excellent of existence. Not perceiving in any way, perceiving is considered the supreme.' And so on, in all the scriptures, because existence, perception, meditation, and results are not prohibited. You have not directly realized the separation from the two imputations of the Dharma Realm, so it is said that you are not a characteristic of Prajnaparamita. But mostly, like 'ineffable words, bad meditation, you will be confused,' you have entered the state of being without a name like Kitaka. It should also be said like this: With the water treasury of sutras and tantras, right and wrong, as a garland, those who fear and cling to the extreme of non-dwelling, separated from the noble protector of the ship of wisdom, hold onto nothing as a support. Ema, how many doors of Dharma, from the stainless reasoning of the great chariot, the mind-made of the body of the path is perfected, this is the one path for all who desire liberation. It is also praised like this. The answer to that is: You will not become Madhyamikas, because there is no dwelling in the middle. If you dwell there, it is because you want to dwell in the extreme of non-duality, this saying is meaningless. In the case of conventional truth, the way to eliminate the two extremes is accepted by both oneself and others. But you think that just that is the ultimate way of dwelling. But we think that just that is not the ultimate way of dwelling, but relying on it, we enter the ultimate non-conventional truth. And we think that the non-conventional truth itself is the ultimate way of dwelling, if the dispute is in this difference, then dwelling in the freedom from the four extremes, then the fault of dwelling in the extreme of non-dwelling, and the fault of dwelling in the extreme of non-existence are slightly not established. Because it is directly said that one does not want to dwell in any of the extremes, so the place of dwelling outside the four extremes
Chinese
有却又没有。那么是不安住于任何事物吗？如果这样问，如世尊所说：“如何引导不积聚之界不安住”，等等，就像所说的那样，只是在不安住于任何事物上安立了“安住”的名称而已。如经中所说，何时是无生，心也远离生等。如果不安住于任何事物，那么心的行境是怎样的呢？如果能说“行境是这样的”，那又怎能说是不可言说呢？它的行境是远离四边，各自自己才能证知的，不能用言辞的途径直接向凡夫俗子展示。如月称菩萨所说：“欲示胜义谛，彼性非言说，非是所知境，故彼不能示。为令随彼心，于自所受处，显示彼体性，故常说诸喻。”因此，在思维修习真如时，只有圣者才是可靠的，而不是非圣者，就像这样说的。那么，因为是圣者的行境，我们凡夫俗子就不能作为行境，为了确定这一点，如果说讲述经文和道理没有意义，那就大错特错了。依靠甚深经文，按照经文的意义，用理智驳斥一切执边的对境，在凡夫的地位上，对远离一切对境的、离戏的实相生起定解。如果没有这个，那么所有这些确定无边无住之义的佛语和论典，主要是为了向凡夫俗子展示空性。因为圣者们已经自己现证了，所以不需要用这些言辞重新展示。此外，如果现在凡夫的地位上不存在不可言说的实相的证成，那么说它存在于圣者的地位上也是不合理的。因为如果承认这一点，承认者凡夫们在没有以量成立的情况下，也无法证明它存在于圣者的地位上的合理性。因此，通过经文和道理可以证悟离戏，例如，虽然用手指指月亮能看到月亮，但月亮和手指不必相同。
English
It exists, yet it does not exist. If asked, "Then does it not abide in anything at all?" As the Blessed One said, "How does one lead to the uncompounded realm that does not abide?" and so forth, just as it is said, it is merely the imputation of the term "abiding" upon that which does not abide in anything at all. As it is said in the scriptures, when is it unborn, and the mind is also free from birth, and so on. If it does not abide in anything, then what is the object of that mind? If it were possible to say, "The object is like this," then how could it be said to be inexpressible? Its object is that which is free from the four extremes, to be known individually by oneself, and cannot be directly shown to children through the path of words. As Chandrakirti said, "Because the nature of the ultimate truth is inexpressible and not an object of knowledge, it cannot be directly shown. In order to clarify its nature in the mind that wishes to hear, in the place of one's own experience, examples are always given." Therefore, in contemplating suchness, only the noble ones are reliable, and not those who are not noble, as it is said. Then, because it is the object of the noble ones, we ordinary beings cannot make it an object. If it is thought that stating the scriptures and reasoning is meaningless in order to ascertain this, then it is a great mistake. Relying on the profound scriptures, according to their meaning, all fixations on extremes are refuted by reasoning, and in the state of an ordinary being, a definite understanding arises regarding the meaning of the reality that is free from all fixations and free from elaboration. If this were not the case, then all these words of the Buddha and treatises that ascertain the meaning of non-abiding in the absence of extremes would primarily be teaching emptiness to ordinary beings. Because the noble ones have already realized it themselves, it is not necessary to newly show it to them with these words. Furthermore, if there is no proof that the inexpressible reality exists in the state of an ordinary being, then it is not reasonable to assert that it exists in the state of a noble one. Because if one were to assert this, ordinary beings who assert it would not be able to prove any justification for its existence in the state of a noble one without having perceived it with valid cognition. Therefore, although one can realize freedom from elaboration through scripture and reasoning, for example, although one can see the moon by pointing at it with a finger, the moon and the finger do not have to be the same.