本文針對《入中論》卷六第48至71偈頌部分，綜觀月稱遮破「唯識無境」之論辯內容與方式，探討整理月稱評破唯識無境的理由，試就唯識學派的立場進行回應。應成派的歸謬法以不立自宗、以破為立為方法，在第48至71偈頌中，月稱根據中觀「否定自性」的根本立場，本著「緣起」與「自性」背反的見地，展開緣起的論法，徹底地難破破唯識無境的論辯。不過顯然，唯識宗是不認為有被難破的。因為空有二宗於「自性」的理解、於「緣起」的解讀不同，因此月稱據其性空緣起宗義展開論辯，可說沒有說服彼宗的效果。就雙方辯論的內容觀之，兩大學系立論大本的不同，有其根本性的歧見。

This paper discusses the debate in Madhyamakāvatāra, Vol. 6, from 48 to 71 gathas, where Candrakīrti refuted the arguments of ”the Consciousnessonly School,” and the reasons he refuted the Consciousness-only arguments. The author tries to respond as the position of Consciousness-only school. The proof by contradiction is applied by Prāsavgika, which Candrakīrti used; further, in the basic principals of ”not building its subject” and ”refuting is proving,” Candrakīrti, with the insight of the antithesis of both dependent origination and self-being, completely refuted the Consciousness-only arguments. But obviously, the Consciousness-only School does not consider itself being refuted; this is because both schools have different definitions on ”self-being” and dependent origination. So Candrakīrti's arguments could be considered as no persuasion. To view from the content of both sides, both schools have their fundamental disagreements rooted in their standpoints.