Chinese
世俗谛，是世间所共称的差别。但在中观自宗的世俗谛中，没有正谬的差别。因为梦中的火也能在梦中焚烧，所以在梦中能起作用。而真实的火也不会在胜义谛中做焚烧的 कार्य (kārya，事业，作用)。所以，就实情而言，有无作用似乎相同。但在显现上，有作用和无作用似乎也相同。他们是这么说的。这不合理。因为在清醒状态下，对于感官没有缺陷的人来说，所显现的因果缘起，必定显现在处所、身体、寿命、种姓相同、延续一致的事物上，并且能体验到具有理由且不混乱的现象。而在梦中，处所、身体、寿命三者种姓延续一致。有时进入火中会被烧毁，有时进入火中却显得湿润，有时进入火中会到达三十三天等等，见到非常不确定且混乱的情况。因此，从稳固的习气中产生的果，和从不稳固的习气中产生的果，是截然不同的。还有，世俗谛被称为世间谛，如果世间人所区分的必须依赖世间人的智慧来安立，那么，凡是被世间有知识的人认为是 разум (razum，理性，道理)的，在这里也只是 разум (razum，理性，道理)而已。与世间相违背的世间谛的安立，真是太奇怪了。所谓的中观自宗又是什么呢？如果是指理性的观察，那么，在你们的宗派中，在理性的观察下，作为基础的世俗谛本身并不成立。因此，正谬的差别不会产生，这确实没错。但是，在这种自宗中，对世俗谛进行安立本身就是愚蠢的。而且，在理性的角度来看，世俗谛也不会仅仅变成幻象，因为要安立为幻象，必须要有显现和呈现，但在理性的角度来看，这是不存在的。还有，如果是指瑜伽行者后得位的体验，那么，正谬二者之间的差别就非常大了。因为谬误是不可能有体验的，而正确的则能体验。即使可以比作幻象，各自的自相不同也不会有冲突。幻象的大象是具有象牙的形体。
English
Conventional truth is the distinction that is known in the world. However, in the conventional truth of the Madhyamaka's own system, there is no distinction between right and wrong. Because the fire in a dream can also burn in the dream, it can function in the dream. And the real fire does not perform the act of burning in the ultimate truth. Therefore, in reality, it seems the same whether there is action or not. But in appearance, it seems the same whether there is action or not. That's what they say. This is not reasonable. Because in the waking state, for those whose senses are without defect, the dependent arising of cause and effect that appears, necessarily appears in things that have the same place, body, life, lineage, and continuity, and one experiences phenomena that are reasoned and not confused. But in dreams, the place, body, and life are of the same lineage and continuity. Sometimes entering fire is burned, sometimes entering fire appears wet, sometimes entering fire goes to the Thirty-Three Heavens, and so on. One sees very uncertain and confused situations. Therefore, the fruit that arises from stable imprints and the fruit that arises from unstable imprints are very different. Furthermore, conventional truth is called worldly truth. If what is distinguished by worldly people must be established based on the minds of worldly people, then whatever is known as reason to the knowledgeable people of the world is only reason here. The establishment of worldly truth that contradicts the worldly is very strange. What is this so-called Madhyamaka's own system? If it refers to the perspective of rational investigation, then in your system, under the perspective of rational knowledge, the basis, conventional truth itself, is not established. Therefore, it is true that the distinction between right and wrong does not arise. However, in such a system, it is foolish to establish conventional truth. Moreover, from the perspective of reason, conventional truth does not merely become an illusion, because to establish it as an illusion, there must be an appearance and manifestation, but this does not exist from the perspective of reason. Furthermore, if it refers to the experience of a yogi in the post-meditation state, then the difference between right and wrong is very great. Because wrong cannot be experienced, while right can be experienced. Even if it can be compared to an illusion, the difference in their own characteristics does not contradict. The illusory elephant is a form with tusks.
Chinese
也顯現，因為幻化的馬不顯現為有獠牙。作用也不同，從幻術顯現為美麗而生起歡喜，從不美麗的顯現而生起不高興，就像這樣。像幻術師雖然知道是幻術，但不能遮止喜歡和不喜歡，因為貪欲是從習氣的力量產生的。就像雖然用理智知道身體是不清淨的，但不能遮止對身體的貪著。因此，除非親眼見到如幻術般的真如，否則即使用理智認識到如幻術般，也不能遮止貪嗔等，但習慣了就會變得少一些。也應該這樣理解。如果說世間的規矩是怎樣，你們也想要承認，那麼，錯誤的區別為什麼不是你們自己的觀點呢？又在安立世俗的同時，那是從習氣的力量不由自主地顯現的，不是在理智面前顯現的。僅僅是未經觀察的顯現，不能安立離戲或幻術的特徵和名言，因為如果未經觀察和未經修習也有那樣的顯現，那麼所有的輪迴者也就都成了知曉如幻術般，並正在進入離戲的智慧之中了。在你們的觀點中，未經觀察時承許一切安立，那是進入世俗諦的方式，觀察時遠離一切承許，這是進入勝義諦的方式。如果這樣斷然地說，那麼在世俗中觀察時，說這個和那個不成立，這就是自己的話語極其矛盾。例如，就像如果把死屍切成碎片就會毀壞一樣，如果說沒有死，活著的時候把死屍切成碎片也會毀壞，那就成了極其不相關聯的、胡說八道的話語。因此，就像活著的時候不可能有死屍一樣，以勝義的觀察理智來觀察世俗是不可能的，因為那個理智一旦觀察完畢，就會只觀察勝義。以勝義的觀察理智來觀察，雖然說的觀察本身是世俗的，但並不是在世俗中觀察，因為通過觀察能夠理解勝義。否則，觀察的結果就是理解世俗
English
It also appears, because the illusory horse does not appear to have fangs. The functions are also different; joy arises from the illusion appearing beautiful, and displeasure arises from the appearance of ugliness, just like that. Although someone like a magician knows it is an illusion, they cannot prevent liking and disliking, because desire arises from the power of habit. Just as even though one knows with reason that the body is impure, one cannot prevent attachment to the body. Therefore, unless one directly sees the suchness that is like an illusion, even if one understands it to be like an illusion with intelligence, one cannot prevent attachment, hatred, and so on, but if one becomes accustomed to it, it will only become less. This should also be understood. If you say that whatever the customs of the world are, you also want to accept them, then why isn't the distinction of error your own view? Furthermore, while establishing the conventional, it arises involuntarily from the power of habit, and it is not in the face of reason. For a mere appearance without investigation, one cannot establish the characteristics and terms of freedom from elaboration or illusion, because if it exists even without investigation and without cultivation, then all sentient beings in samsara would also be knowing illusion-like phenomena and entering the wisdom of freedom from elaboration. In your view, when not investigating, you accept all establishments, and that is the way to enter into conventional truth, and when investigating, being free from all acceptances, this is entering into ultimate truth. If you assert this decisively, then saying that this and that are not established when investigating in the conventional is a great contradiction in your own words. For example, just as a corpse is destroyed when cut into pieces, if you say that it is not dead, but when it is alive, the dead corpse is cut into pieces, it will also be destroyed, then it becomes extremely irrelevant, like nonsensical words. Therefore, just as a dead corpse is impossible while alive, it is impossible to investigate the conventional with the reasoning that investigates the ultimate, because that reasoning, once it has investigated, will only investigate the ultimate. Although the investigation by the reasoning that investigates the ultimate is conventional from its own side, it is not investigating in the conventional, because through investigation one can understand the ultimate. Otherwise, the result of the investigation is understanding the conventional.
Tibetan
ལ་འཇོག་དགོས་ཤིང༌། ཁྱོད་དག་དོན་དམ་དཔྱོད་བྱེད་ཀྱི་རིག་པས་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་དཔྱད་ན་དོན་དམ་གོ་བར་འགྱུར་རོ་ཞེས་སྨྲ་བའམ། ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཏུ་དཔྱད་པས་དམ་པའི་དོན་གོ་བར་འགྱུར་ཞེས་སྨྲ་ལ་རག དེའི་ཕྱིར་མ་འབྲེལ་བ། འགལ་བ་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་དེ་ལ་སུ་ཞིག་ཡིད་རྟོན་པར་བྱེད། ཁོ་བོ་ཅག་ནི་འདི་སྐད་ཅེས་སྨྲ་སྟེ། ཡང་ལོག་གི་དབྱེ་བ་གཉིས་སུ་མ་ཟད་ད་དུང་དབྱེ་བ་དུ་མ་འཐད་ལྡན་དུ་འབྱུང་བར་འགྱུར་ལ། རིག་པའི་དཔྱད་ངོ་ཞེས་པ་ཡང་རྣམ་པ་གཉིས་ཏེ། འཇིག་རྟེན་དག་པ་པའི་དཔྱད་པ་དང༌། དོན་དམ་རིག་ཤེས་ཀྱི་དཔྱད་པ་གཉིས་ཡོད་པས། དང་པོས་ནི་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་རྟེན་འབྲེལ་མ་འཁྲུལ་བ་ལ་ངེས་ཤེས་སྐྱེད་པར་བྱེད། ཕྱི་མའི་ངོ་ན་ཀུན་རྫོབ་སྣང་གྲགས་ཀྱི་ཆོས་གང་ཡང་མི་འགྲུབ་མོད་ ཀྱི། དོན་དམ་དབྱིངས་ནི་འགོག་པ་ནུས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །ཞེས་བྱའོ། །དོན་དམ་དངོས་ལ་ནི་ངོ་བོའི་སྒོ་ནས་དབྱེ་བ་མེད་ཀྱང༌། བློའི་རྟོགས་ཚུལ་གྱི་དབང་དུ་བྱས་ནས། དོན་དམ་གྱི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་དང༌། དོན་དམ་གྱི་དོན་དམ་མོ། །དང་པོ་ནི་སོ་སོ་སྐྱེ་བོའི་ཤེས་པ་ཡིན་ཡང༌། གང་ལ་དམིགས་ཏེ་སྒོམས་ན། གནས་ལུགས་མཐོང་ཞིང༌། རྣམ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཐོབ་པར་འགྱུར་བ་དེ་ནི། རྗེས་སུ་མཐུན་པའི་དོན་དམ་དང༌། རྣམ་གྲངས་ཀྱི་དོན་དམ་ཞེས་ཀྱང་བྱ་སྟེ། ལུགས་གཞན་ལས་ཇི་སྐད་དུ། སྐྱེ་ལ་སོགས་པ་བཀག་པ་ཡང༌། །དམ་པའི་དོན་དང་མཐུན་པའི་ཕྱིར། །དོན་དམ་ཡིན་པར་ཁོ་བོས་འདོད། །ཅེས་སྨྲ་བ་ལྟ་བུ་དང་མཚུངས་ཏེ། རིག་ཤེས་ཀྱི་ཡུལ་དུ་དགག་བྱ་མཐའ་དག་བཀག་པ་ཙམ་དེ་དང༌། གཞན་ཡང་མི་རྟག་སྡུག་བསྔལ་བདག་མེད་ལ་སོགས་པ་ཡང་ཡིན་ཏེ། འདི་དངོས་སུ་ན་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཡིན་ཀྱང༌། དོན་དམ་ལ་འཇུག་པའི་ཐབས་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། དོན་དམ་གྱི་རྣམ་གྲངས་ལ་བགྲོང་ངོ༌། །གཉིས་པ་ནི། མཐོང་བའི་ལམ་ཐོབ་པ་ཡན་ཆད་ཀྱི། མཉམ་གཞག་རྣམ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པའི་སྤྱོད་ཡུལ་དེ་ཁོ་ན་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་དག་ལས། ལོག་པའི་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ནི། ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཙམ་པོ་སྟེ། ཀུན་རྫོབ་བདེན་པ་བཏགས་པ་བ་དང༌། ཡང་དག་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ནི། དེ་དངོས་སོ། །རྣམ་གྲངས་ཀྱི་དོན་དམ་ནི་དོན་དམ་ཙམ་པོ་སྟེ། དོན་དམ་བཏགས་པ་བ་དང༌། རྣམ་གྲངས་མ་ཡིན་པའི་དོན་དམ་ནི་དོན་དམ་དངོས་སོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཅེས་བྱ་ན། ཀུན་རྫོབ་ཀྱི་སྐད་དོད། སམ་པྲྀ་ཏའི་སྒྲ་ལས་དྲངས་ནས། ཡང་དག་པ་ལ་སྒྲིབ་བྱེད་མ་རིག་པའི་སྣང་ངོར་གྱུར་པའི་དོན་ཡིན་ལ། ཡང་སམ་ནི་ཀུན་ནས་ཀྱི་དོན་དང་ པྲྀ་ཏ་བསླུ་བ་དང
Chinese
应当安立。你们说，以辨别胜义的理智在世俗中进行辨别，就能理解胜义吗？或者说，在世俗中进行辨别，就能理解胜义谛吗？因此，对于不相关联、相违背的颠倒之说，谁会相信呢？我们这样说：反正错误的分类不止两种，还会出现许多合理的分类。所谓的理智辨别也有两种：世间清净者的辨别和胜义理智的辨别。前者能对因果缘起不虚假产生定解。在后者看来，任何世俗显现的法都不成立，然而，胜义法界却无法遮止。应当这样说。胜义谛本身从体性的角度来说没有差别，但从心识证悟的方式来说，有胜义谛的世俗和胜义谛的胜义。前者是异生凡夫的意识，但如果缘着它进行修习，就能现见实相，获得无分别智，这也被称为随顺胜义和名言胜义。如其他宗派所说：遮止生等，因为与胜义谛相符，所以我认为是胜义谛。这与仅仅遮止理智识境中的一切所破相同，此外还有无常、痛苦、无我等，这些实际上是世俗，但因为是进入胜义谛的方法，所以被归入胜义谛的名言中。后者是获得见道之前，等持无分别的行境。在这些之中，错误的世俗仅仅是世俗，是世俗谛的假立，而真实的世俗就是它本身。名言胜义仅仅是胜义，是胜义谛的假立，而非名言胜义就是胜义谛本身。为什么称为世俗呢？因为世俗的梵语词汇，samvṛti（梵文天城体：संवृति，梵文罗马拟音：saṃvṛti，汉语字面意思：覆盖）是从这个词演变而来，意思是对于真实的遮蔽者，成为无明显现的对境。其中，sam（梵文天城体：सम्，梵文罗马拟音：sam，汉语字面意思：全部）是全部的意思，prṛta（梵文天城体：पृत，梵文罗马拟音：pṛta，汉语字面意思：欺骗）是欺骗的意思。
English
It should be established. Do you say that by examining the conventional with the intellect that discerns the ultimate, one will understand the ultimate? Or do you say that by examining the conventional, one will understand the ultimate meaning? Therefore, who would trust such unrelated, contradictory, and inverted statements? We say this: Anyway, there are not only two kinds of wrong classifications, but also many reasonable classifications will occur. The so-called intellectual examination also has two aspects: the examination of the pure ones of the world and the examination of the ultimate knowledge. The former generates definite understanding of the unerring cause and effect of dependent origination. In the latter's view, none of the conventional phenomena are established, however, the ultimate realm cannot be prevented. It should be said like this. The ultimate truth itself has no difference from the perspective of its essence, but from the perspective of how the mind realizes it, there is the conventional of the ultimate truth and the ultimate of the ultimate truth. The former is the consciousness of ordinary beings, but if one meditates on it, one will see the reality and attain non-conceptual wisdom, which is also called the subsequent ultimate truth and the nominal ultimate truth. As other schools say: The cessation of birth, etc., because it is in accordance with the ultimate truth, I consider it to be the ultimate truth. This is the same as merely negating all that is to be negated in the realm of intellectual knowledge, and also impermanence, suffering, selflessness, etc., which are actually conventional, but because they are the means to enter the ultimate truth, they are included in the nominal of the ultimate truth. The latter is the object of the samadhi non-conceptual mind up to the attainment of the path of seeing. Among these, the false conventional is merely conventional, it is the imputation of conventional truth, and the true conventional is itself. The nominal ultimate truth is merely ultimate truth, it is the imputation of ultimate truth, and the non-nominal ultimate truth is the ultimate truth itself. Why is it called conventional? Because the Sanskrit word for conventional, samvṛti, is derived from this word, meaning that for the real concealer, it becomes the object of the appearance of ignorance. Among them, sam means all, and prṛta means deception.