English
“Whoever desires to be a yogi.” etc., this is a quoted scripture. To this, I say: Do you, by saying this, intend to deny what is written in the scriptures of the glorious Jonangpa forefathers and exists within the tradition? If not, but you see people doing it and think that doing so is wrong, and therefore want to deny it, I ask this first. If you say it is the first case, then it is because you are accustomed to lying, so you lie here as well. Our forefathers have said that those who have received the vase initiation of Hevajra etc. can bestow this initiation, but they have only said it once or twice. Where is the Jonangpa treatise that says that the child initiation is not needed at all, tell me! If you say it is the second case, in general, if something is not written down, it cannot be taken as the view of the tradition, and merely a mistake in practice, can you just debate and refute it at will? Most of the ordained monks within three hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana were all those with errors in practice, so what should be done about that? You yourself, your teachers, friends, and students may also have many errors in practice. However, in this case, we have neither errors in practice nor errors in understanding. How is this proven? Because we almost always have our students who will teach the Kalachakra Tantra first receive the child entry initiation from ourselves, so there is no error in practice. In comparison, some of you want to explain the tantra yourselves, but because you are not suitable for initiation, you have others do it. Since the child entry initiation has so much benefit and importance, why don't you do it yourselves? If the initiator is not suitable, then it is difficult for the explainer of the tantra to be suitable as well. Therefore, it is more important to be mindful oneself than to find fault with others. Also, we generally believe that the child entry initiation is needed before the guru, so saying that we don't need the child entry initiation at all is a complete lie, what's the use? Generally thinking it is needed is very different from thinking it is not needed. If you think it is not needed in special cases, then you are also very wrong, because you also admit that when bestowing the Heruka initiation of Guhyasamaja, the vase initiation of Guhyasamaja is not needed. If there is no cause for something to arise, then a special case is unreasonable, it is precisely because there is a special case.
Chinese
并非如此，要获得更高的灌顶，并不需要作为必不可少的因素的童子灌顶，这一点已经成立。既然这一点成立，那么对于需要特别关注的事项，强制性地给予更高的灌顶没有任何妨碍，因此我们的观点永远不会有错。实际的回答是，一般来说，即使没有进入坛城，也有获得解脱成就的经典依据。《佛陀和合经》中说：“未入坛城者，纵然具足诸障碍，若将自身与本尊结合，即使福德微小亦能成就。”又说：“对于此及一切佛，通过见和触，即使未入坛城，也能见到真实。”因此，哪一个经典更具权威性？我自己的观点是，这些经典并不矛盾，其意义将在其他地方详细解释。然而，通过授予最高的灌顶，身体的感官，巴嘎（藏文，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思），心。进入并见到坛城，那么与这些坛城相比，仅仅通过象征性的方式进入，以及自己分别念所构造的本尊形象，和仅仅是图画的坛城又有什么重要的呢？没有进入坛城和没有见到坛城，这个论证是不成立的。没有授予七种灌顶而授予最高的灌顶是可以的，为什么上师不会犯泄露秘密的根本堕罪呢？如果反过来说，因为弟子获得了灌顶，那又该怎么说呢？会犯根本堕罪，因为之前对没有获得灌顶的人展示了秘密。那么，如果之前对没有获得其他灌顶的人给予进入坛城和童子进入的灌顶，那么上师也会犯根本堕罪，因为上师对之前没有获得灌顶的人展示了秘密。又有人说，这不会犯泄露秘密的罪过，因为这个人此时也具有信心，并且正在为这个人进行七种灌顶的仪式。那么，对于强制性地给予更高的灌顶，也不会犯泄露秘密的罪过，因为他也具有信心，并且仪式也是只为他一个人而做。又在这种情况下，这个弟子也获得了更高的灌顶，因为会产生更高的灌顶的誓言。这一点也是成立的，因为更高的灌顶四
English
It is not so. To obtain the higher empowerments, it is established that the child empowerment is not necessary as an indispensable factor. Since this is established, there is no hindrance to forcibly bestowing the higher empowerments on matters that require special attention, so our view will never be wrong. The actual answer is that, in general, there are scriptural authorities that even without entering the mandala, one can attain the siddhi of liberation. In the Buddha Samyoga it says: "Those who have not entered the mandala, even if they are endowed with all obscurations, if they unite themselves with their own deity, even if their merit is small, they will attain it." And it says: "For this and all the Buddhas, through seeing and touching, even those who have not entered the mandala will see the truth." Therefore, which of the earlier and later scriptures is more authoritative? My own view is that these scriptures are not contradictory, and their meaning will be explained in detail elsewhere. However, by bestowing the supreme higher empowerment, the senses of the body, Bhaga (Sanskrit, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, literal Chinese meaning), the mind. Entering and seeing the mandala, then compared to these mandalas, what is so important about entering only through symbolic means, and the deity image constructed by one's own conceptual thoughts, and the mandala that is only a picture? Not entering the mandala and not seeing the mandala, this argument is not established. It is permissible to bestow the supreme empowerment without bestowing the seven empowerments, why would the teacher not commit the root downfall of divulging secrets? If it is said in reverse, because the disciple has obtained the empowerment, then what should be said? One will commit the root downfall, because one has previously shown the secret to someone who has not obtained the empowerment. Then, if one gives the empowerment of entering the mandala and the child's entry to someone who has not previously obtained other empowerments, then the teacher will also commit the root downfall, because the teacher has shown the secret to someone who has not previously obtained the empowerment. Again, it is said that this will not commit the sin of divulging secrets, because this person also has faith at this time, and the ritual of the seven empowerments is being performed for this person. Then, for the forced bestowal of the higher empowerment, there will also be no sin of divulging secrets, because he also has faith, and the ritual is also done only for him. Also, in such a case, this disciple also obtains the higher empowerments, because the vows of the higher empowerments will arise. This is also established, because the higher empowerments four
Chinese
是能生起圆满次第戒律的灌顶。因为除了上面的四个灌顶之外，没有能生起圆满次第戒律的灌顶。这是周遍的。因为已经圆满授予了上面的戒律生起之因。如果说有其他的，请说是什么。如果说是孩童入门等，那么，如果得到孩童入门，就周遍地生起圆满次第的戒律。因为孩童入门是生起圆满次第戒律的灌顶。在那里生起那个，你们自己也是不承认的。还有，那些人这样说：七灌顶留下七地的足迹，上面的四个留下后面四地的足迹，如果我们所承认的相同，那么，没有得到七地而得到第八地等就会成为可能，因为没有得到七灌顶而得到上面的四个灌顶是可能的。他们这样说。我们仅仅是认为七灌顶会留下能够获得七地的特殊能力。这里，足迹的说法，因为说法不美妙而且与意义相违背，所以我们不用那个说法。如果考察意义，七灌顶虽然留下七地的缘起，但是，如果是留下获得七地的缘起之因，因为是七灌顶，怎么会周遍呢？因为必须具有那个也不周遍。所以，那个太过是极不确定的。要对您这样说：没有授予留下获得具有六界的人身的足迹的灌顶，以及修习共同道的相续的灌顶，以及留下资粮道和加行道之地的足迹的灌顶，授予孩童入门的灌顶是不合理的，总之，因为没有获得具有六界的金刚身，以及修习相续，以及没有获得资粮道和加行道之地，获得那七地是不可能的。这是相同周遍的开头结尾。不能承认，因为不存在那样的灌顶。他们认为可以通过不是灌顶的其他方法来成就，这里也是同样的。因此，自己的宗派是：七灌顶的戒律是居士，瓶灌顶是沙弥，秘密灌顶是比丘，世间慧灌顶包括世间第四灌顶是住地，超世间的第四灌顶是生主，也就是阿罗汉相续的无漏戒律和
English
It is the empowerment that generates the vows of the Completion Stage. Because there is no empowerment that generates the vows of the Completion Stage other than the above four empowerments. This is pervasive. Because the cause of generating the higher vows has been completely conferred. If you say there is another, please say what it is. If you say it is the children's entry, then, if you get the children's entry, it is pervasive that the vows of the Completion Stage are born. Because the children's entry is the empowerment that generates the vows of the Completion Stage. You yourself do not admit that it is born there. Also, those people say this: The seven empowerments leave the footprints of the seven grounds, and the above four leave the footprints of the latter four grounds. If what we admit is the same, then it will be possible to obtain the eighth ground etc. without obtaining the seven grounds, because it is possible to obtain the above four empowerments without obtaining the seven empowerments. They say this. We only think that the seven empowerments will leave a special ability to obtain the seven grounds. Here, the term footprint is. Because the saying is not beautiful and contradicts the meaning, we do not use that saying. If we examine the meaning, although the seven empowerments leave the interdependence of the seven grounds, if it is the cause of leaving the interdependence of obtaining the seven grounds, how can it be pervasive because it is the seven empowerments? Because it is necessary to have that, it is not pervasive either. Therefore, that overreach is very uncertain. I will say this to you: Without conferring the empowerment to leave the footprint of obtaining a human body with six elements, and the empowerment to train the continuum of the common path, and the empowerment to leave the footprint of the grounds of accumulation and application, it is unreasonable to confer the empowerment of children's entry, in short, because without obtaining the Vajra body with six elements, and training the continuum, and without obtaining the grounds of accumulation and application, it is impossible to obtain those seven grounds. This is the beginning and end of the same pervasiveness. It cannot be admitted, because such an empowerment does not exist. They think that it can be accomplished by other methods that are not empowerments, here too it is the same. Therefore, one's own doctrine is: The vows of the seven empowerments are lay practitioners, the vase empowerment is novice monks, the secret empowerment is monks, the worldly wisdom empowerment including the worldly fourth empowerment is the abiding place, and the transcendental fourth empowerment is the lord of beings, that is, the uncontaminated vows of the Arhat continuum and
Chinese
也作加持。因此，就像没有受居士戒也能成为沙弥、比丘一样，没有受七灌顶也能生起更高的戒律。四种灌顶各自也能生起各自的戒律。虽然仅仅如此，但如果不完整，金刚四清净就无法圆满，因此为了修持完整的圆满次第，一般而言四者都必须获得。授予四种灌顶之后，先后顺序也要如法。特殊情况下，没有七灌顶也可以，因为七灌顶包含了金刚四清净，而更高的灌顶也包含了清净，但类别不同。每个更高的灌顶也能生起各自戒律的原因是，如《智慧成就》中所说，只讲了第四灌顶。如果这没有过失，那么显然只有根器锐利者才能获得灌顶。但必须有只有这种情况才允许的时候。有些人说这是法王乔列南嘉（ཆོས་རྒྱལ་ཕྱོགས་ལས་རྣམ་རྒྱལ，约公元1375-1450年）的观点，认为通过进入坛城的仪轨，即使没有授予七灌顶，授予胜乐灌顶也可以开示圆满次第，因为圆满次第的生起不依赖于生起次第。他们这样说，然后像以前一样进行反驳。如果宗喀巴大师的著作中，无论大小，都没有这样说过，那么宗喀巴大师没有给他的弟子们，而是赐予了你们口耳相传的教言吗？这肯定是由于没有见过经书，而被恶劣的老师的错误口头传授所欺骗。因此，灌顶、加持和随许都有一个叫做前行法的，但这不一定是进入坛城的仪轨。进入更高灌顶的身体坛城等，外坛城的进入仪轨对我们有什么用呢？难道你需要那样的吗？连进入和前行仪轨的区别都不懂，这分明是想从干枯的辩论之地强行进入密咒，暴露了自己的本色。还有，对于入门的灌顶，我们不像你们那样大声喧哗地念诵密咒，但自己和他人也经常