UMA CHIDUN current - The Knowledge Base

And this is moreover true because he says,
Classical commentaries other than the classical commentary on the middle way fail to explain this thing called
“emptiness” in an unerring way.
DE BZHIN DU KHO BO CAG GI 'DIR 'BYUNG BA'I LUGS GANG ZHIG
BRGAL LAN DANG BCAS TE, BSNYAD PA'I LUGS 'DI NAS 'BYUNG BA
DE YANG STONG PA NYID KYI CHOS LTAR BSTAN BCOS GZHAN NA
MED DO ZHES MKHAS PA RNAMS KYIS NGES PAR MDZAD DU GSOL,
ZHES GSUNGS PA'I PHYIR,
Here in our text we are using a system of explanation which incorporates responses to earlier objections; and the
way here that we explain emptiness is—in that same way—something that is lacking in the other classical
commentaries. This is something we hope the wise will perceive.
RTZA SHE'I DGONGS PA SEMS TZAM DU 'GREL DU MI RUNG BA LA
NGES PA BRTAN PO RNYED PA'I SGO NAS 'JUG TSUL YOD DE,
There is also a way in which Entering the Middle Way “enters” into the true
intent of The Root Text on Wisdom by helping people come to a firm
realization that it would be incorrect to interpret the latter work as one that
belongs to the Mind-Only School.
RANG GI MTSAN NYID KYIS GRUB PA'I RGYU GZHAN LAS RANG GI
MTSAN NYID KYIS GRUB PA'I 'BRAS BU GZHAN SKYE BA'I GZHAN
SKYE SPYI DANG KHYAD PAR DU SEMS TZAM PA'I 'DOD PA BRJOD
NAS DE LEGS PAR BKAG PA'I SGO NAS
And this is true because Entering the Middle Way “enters into” explaining the
meaning of The Root Text on Wisdom first by refuting, quite successfully, the
general idea of something growing from something else: the idea that a
result that existed by definition could grow from something other than it—
that is, from a cause that also existed by definition. And it undertakes this
refutation, more specifically, by expressing the position of the Mind-Only
School and then refuting it.
MING BRDAS BZHAG TZAM LA RGYU 'BRAS KYI RNAM GZHAG
'THAD PAR BSTAN PA'I SGO NAS RTZA SHE'I DON 'GREL BA LA 'JUG