Chinese
因为没有阻止果实，而且您也说了法界远离了能诠所诠二者。当这样说的时候，回答说：我们并没有在各自的二谛的承认下，说凡是说“有”就是有边，凡是说“无”就是无边，而是说在分析名言的时候，虽然在胜义中没有，但在名言中存在并非是边，而是遮遣自己方面的边。但仅仅如此并不能遣除执着于分别念的相的所有边，所以在成立非名言的胜义离戏的时候，也必须舍弃执着于相的有和无的细微边。因此，如经中所说的“有和无这二者”等意义，对于没有戏论的解释是如理如实的说法，就像“何处无有边，彼处亦何有中”一样。按照其他的解释方法，就与“智者不住于中”这句话直接相违背了，应该说成“智者完全安住于中”。如果认为说安住于中也不以实执而安住就可以了，那么对于经典中显示离戏的语句，用自己的想法进行解释，用很多方式将离戏引入戏论的道路，有什么必要呢？因此，实相远离一切戏论，不堕入任何边和所缘的形态，这就是根本中观或者需要确定的基础，像这样证悟就是中观道，这非常合理。如果从所境的角度来说，也是断定为两个方面；如果从能境的角度来说，也是执着于两个部分，怎么能称之为中观呢？那两个方面就在那里穷尽了，需要将二者合一才称之为中，而不是不堕入两边的中，这第三者是心识安住之处，即使在名言中也找不到，就像安住在牛角有和兔子角无的中间一样。《现观庄严论》中，在解释中等暖位的所缘时，说了“离处和处”，意思是，色等积聚的离处所缘，没有安住在那里。
English
Because the fruit is not prevented, and you also said that the Dharmadhatu is free from the two extremes of expression and object of expression. When saying this, the answer is: We do not, under the separate acknowledgment of the two truths, say that whatever is said to "exist" is the extreme of existence, and whatever is said to "not exist" is the extreme of non-existence. Rather, we say that when analyzing conventional truths, although it does not exist in the ultimate sense, its existence in the conventional sense is not an extreme, but rather eliminates the extreme of one's own side. However, this alone cannot eliminate all the extremes of clinging to the characteristics of conceptual thought. Therefore, when establishing the non-conceptual ultimate reality free from elaboration, it is also necessary to abandon the subtle extremes of existence and non-existence that cling to characteristics. Therefore, the meaning of the sutra which says, "These two, existence and non-existence," etc., is a proper and truthful explanation of the meaning without elaboration, just as it is said, "Where there is no extreme, how can there be a middle?" According to other explanations, it directly contradicts the statement, "The wise do not abide in the middle," and it should be said, "The wise completely abide in the middle." If one thinks that it is enough to say that abiding in the middle is not abiding with clinging to reality, then what is the need to interpret the words of the sutra that show freedom from elaboration with one's own ideas, leading freedom from elaboration into the path of elaboration in many ways? Therefore, the reality that is free from all elaboration, not falling into any extreme or the form of an object of focus, is the basis of the fundamental Middle Way or the basis to be determined. Understanding it in this way is called the Middle Way path, which is very reasonable. If viewed from the perspective of the object, it is also determined to be two aspects; if viewed from the perspective of the subject, it is also clinging to two parts. How can it be called the Middle Way? Those two aspects are exhausted there, and it is necessary to combine the two into one to be called the middle, rather than the middle that does not fall into the two extremes. This third thing, a place where the mind can abide, cannot be found even in conventional terms, just like abiding in the middle of the existence of a cow's horn and the non-existence of a rabbit's horn. In the Ornament for Clear Realization, when explaining the object of focus of the intermediate heat, it says "separation from a place and a place," meaning the object of focus that is separate from the accumulation of forms, etc., without abiding there.
Chinese
《释论》中说，如果需要没有安住，那么没有安住也同样说了，所以力量相同。如果名言不承认安住，那么没有安住也同样不存在，应该这样说。但在名言中承认安住时，就不承认不安住，这和胜义中在任何边都不承认安住，怎么能一样呢？《摄类学》中说，没有安住就是安住，也是因为胜义的自性没有安住，和它相顺应的意识所缘境，才说是名言中的安住。还有，《现观庄严论》中说，凡是没有的，都说是有的殊胜，以及，在一切形相中都不可得，也显示为能得的殊胜，这也是一样的。胜义中什么也不可得，那本身，才说是名言中能得的殊胜。经论中说，有、所缘、修、果等都没有遮止，是指名言中没有遮止吗？还是认为胜义中没有遮止，有、所缘等存在而这样说呢？如果是前者，那是可以接受的，因为在世俗中，没有有，没有所缘，没有修，没有果，谁也没有承认过，所以没有任何损害。如果是胜义中，有等任何中观宗都不应该承认，所以那样的责难只是文字上的劳累而已。您也说，没有现证远离法界增益和损减二者，就不是般若波罗蜜多的相，即使是这样，也是就非名言的胜义而言而这样说的，所以这句话丝毫也不能损害。说我是“离言语的空名，恶劣的修行者”，看来您非常生气。我确实是比离言语更甚的，一个空名头的恶劣修行者，因为无所缘、离言语和离戏论等见解高深，不容易轻易在心中显现，而用一异等道理来观察的空性，容易在心中显现。所以，虽然装作按照自己心力的能力，稍微思维了一下那个意义，但由于从无始以来积累的业和烦恼习气的障碍非常强大，所以以前也没有切中要害，后来又一直被剧烈的病痛所折磨，再加上从无始以来
English
The commentary says that if there is a need for no abiding, then no abiding is also said in the same way, so the power is the same. If conventional truth does not accept abiding, then no abiding is also equally non-existent, it should be said like this. But when abiding is accepted in conventional truth, then non-abiding is not accepted, how can this be the same as not accepting abiding on any side in ultimate truth? The Compendium says that no abiding is abiding, also because the nature of ultimate truth is no abiding, and the object of consciousness that conforms to it is said to be abiding in conventional truth. Also, the Ornament of Clear Realization says that whatever is non-existent is said to be the supreme of existence, and that which is not perceived in all aspects is also shown to be the supreme of perception, this is also the same. In ultimate truth, nothing is perceived, that itself is said to be the supreme of perception in conventional truth. The scriptures say that existence, object, meditation, result, etc. are not prohibited, does this mean that they are not prohibited in conventional truth? Or is it thought that there is no prohibition in ultimate truth, and that existence, object, etc. exist, and that's why it is said like that? If it is the former, then it is acceptable, because in the relative truth, there is no existence, no object, no meditation, no result, no one has ever admitted it, so there is no harm. If it is in ultimate truth, then no Madhyamika should admit existence, etc., so such accusations are just the labor of writing. You also said that one who has not directly realized the separation from the two extremes of imputation and denial of the Dharma realm is not a characteristic of Prajnaparamita, even so, it is said in this way with regard to the ultimate truth that is not a nominal designation, so this sentence cannot harm in the slightest. Saying that I am "a bad practitioner with an empty name of being beyond words", it seems that you are very angry. I am indeed more than beyond words, a bad practitioner with an empty name, because the views of no object, beyond words, and free from elaboration are profound and difficult to easily appear in the mind, while emptiness, which is examined by the reasoning of one and many, etc., is easy to appear in the mind. Therefore, although pretending to think a little about that meaning according to the ability of my own mind, the obscurations of karma and afflictions accumulated from beginningless time are very strong, so I have not hit the point before, and later I have been constantly tormented by severe pain, and together with that, from beginningless time
Chinese
当被贪恋的烦恼之病也无法使心堪能时，为了稍微缓解这种自我折磨，以畏惧救护之心，以理智分析疾病的本质和贪嗔的对象，当思维其无自性时，虽然无自性，但在名言中存在，依靠这两种想法，在那意识的面前，因为在名言中存在，所以算作存在，因为在胜义中不存在，所以不算作不存在一样，对于痛苦和烦恼，没有产生任何有益或有害的结果，仅仅是一种与普通人无异的恶劣禅修，您以传承的尺度，以法眼观察，给予“攻击弱点”的教诲，对此我非常敬佩，除了这样说之外，我不会以挑剔的心态说任何话。像这样，是因为我自己变得软弱了。其他任何圣者都安住在修持三摩地的床榻上，为了使交替进行禅定和后得之间的间隙变得有意义，精通止观双运诀窍的人们，通过修习能根除百病的般若波罗蜜多的意义，生起体验，每一次禅修都能像对热病施用樟脑一样消除痛苦和烦恼，我也这样认为。即使如此，经论的阐述都是追随前代智者成就者的足迹而说的，没有看到任何失去名称的害处，在讲述这些道理的时候自然会明白。您的中间偈颂虽然变化很好，但“心的造作”却变成了“自己的思维造作，虚构造作”。如果好好思考，在诸佛的教言中，没有划分“我们和你们的宗派”。如同伟大车乘者的意趣，因为证悟真谛，所以贤哲成就者们，对于善说的份额并不逊色，在我们的宗派中也有，然而，对于以公正之心进行分析的人来说，正确的就是应该接受的。为了解脱而进行分析时，怀有憎恨的念头有什么用呢？即使知道是佛所说，如果还加以驳斥，又怎能成为佛的传承者呢？因此，甚深
English
When the disease of afflictions, which is clung to, cannot make the mind workable, in order to relieve this self-torment a little, with the thought of fear and protection, analyzing the nature of the disease and the object of attachment and aversion with reason, when thinking of its non-inherent existence, although there is no inherent existence, it exists in name, relying on these two thoughts, in the face of that consciousness, because it exists in name, it is counted as existence, because it does not exist in ultimate reality, it is as if it is not counted as non-existence, for suffering and afflictions, without producing any beneficial or harmful results, it is merely a bad meditation that is no different from ordinary people, you, with the measure of lineage, observing with the Dharma eye, gave the teaching of "attacking the weak points," to this I am very respectful, besides saying this, I will not say anything with a critical mind. Like this, it is because I myself have become weak. Any other noble being is dwelling on the bed of practicing samadhi, in order to make the gaps between alternating meditation and post-meditation meaningful, those who are skilled in the key points of uniting calm and insight, through cultivating the meaning of the Prajnaparamita that can eradicate hundreds of diseases of existence, generating experience, each meditation can eliminate suffering and afflictions like applying camphor to a fever, I also think so. Even so, the explanations of the scriptures are all said following the footsteps of the wise and accomplished ones of the past, not seeing any harm in losing the name, one will naturally understand when speaking of these reasons. Your intermediate verses, although the changes are good, but "the fabrication of the mind" has become "one's own mental fabrication, fictional fabrication." If you think well, in the teachings of the Buddhas, there is no division of "our and your schools." Like the intention of the great charioteers, because of realizing the truth, the wise and accomplished ones, for the share of good speech is not inferior, in our school also there is, however, for those who analyze with an impartial mind, what is correct is what should be accepted. When analyzing for the sake of liberation, what is the use of having thoughts of hatred? Even if you know it is said by the Buddha, if you still refute it, how can you become a successor of the Buddha? Therefore, profound
Chinese
意义之境中，前后诸大贤哲意相同，若能成办，雪域持教者，得无诤之法喜。这是中间的偈颂。再次于辩论书中：声闻部若执著于补特伽罗无我，且执著自性有，则成为堕入二边，此观点太过分。识论解释无边甚深经续之意，且于《解深密经》中说，以此道与此修，成就且获得无上安乐之涅槃。已说证悟空性与无我为殊胜道，且于《善护经》中说，二边之中间即是中道，中观与唯识皆如是安立，然汝等仍说超越于此，是欲跳入第五边之悬崖。若不能安住于二边之中间，则中间是二者皆是，与非二者之外的他边是什么？ 成为中观所说的无中之过失。于《中边论》中，“非空非不空，以有以无以有”，等等，如第二一切智解释《般若经》之意，应如唯识宗之理而解释。《现观庄严论》中，“于彼常等理”，如是说故，唯识宗与自续派亦应许于各自之论典中宣说离一切边的离戏空性，且亦应承认之。汝说自续派仅许名言，应成派仅许非名言，若如是，则写道胜义是前者进入后者之门。如是分为二，且许前者为门，此是前所未有之第五宗汝之宗派乎？自续派许后者，故汝引《中观庄严论》之无生等不可能之教证亦已承认。若以理智沟通，于自续派之理，以真成立遮止有边之空性，与离四边之空性，审查何者不许即可知晓。应成