Chinese
那些是诸佛普贤王如来以其一切智智观照之方式。如《说续》所说：“此后，薄伽梵吉祥普贤王如来观见所有眷属之意愿。”对此有三：观照之理由、观照之方式，以及辩论之过失的避免。第一，如《除障》所说：“自续清净之诸佛，于彼与彼无别之自性中，显现故，且非异于自性故，自身之邪分别清净故，一切知。”因此，从智慧之界显现不异于自性之义，具有自性唯一之事业与慈悲之关联，以及自身之邪分别从根本上清净之故而观照。此外，其他续部中说：“邪分别考察皆清净，非异于智慧之界故，以大慈悲关联故，六道时处无余显。”方式有三：以遍知的如所有智，于任何事物皆不执著而观照；以证悟的如所有智，于任何事物皆不阻碍而观照；以及以心或无别智，于一切皆无别地观照。第三，避免辩论分为二：总的辩论避免，以及分别的如所有智的辩论避免。第一种分为二：辩驳和回答。第一，如果诸佛观照所化众生，是以对境而观照吗？还是不对境而观照？还是以对境与有境无别而观照？如果像第一种情况，诸佛将成为具有能取所取者，因为对境和有境二者皆存在。例如眼识和色法。如果像第二种情况，则不应观照，因为不对境，例如眼识之于声音。如果像第三种情况，则不适用观照之语，因为能观与所观未成立。例如眼睛看眼睛。回答分为二：广开言路和狭隘回答。第一种是，以对境而观照，不对境也观照，以对境与有境无别也观照。第一种是，从证悟的如所有智的角度，所观之境与能观之
English
These are the ways in which the Buddhas, the All-Good Ones, perceive with their omniscient wisdom. As stated in the Explanatory Tantra: "Then, the Bhagavan, the glorious All-Good One, having seen that all the retinues were fully assembled..." There are three aspects to this: the reasons for perceiving, the manner of perceiving, and the avoidance of faults in disputation. Firstly, as stated in the Obstacle Clearing: "All the Buddhas with pure self-essence, In that and that, without difference, in that very nature, Manifested, and not other than self, Because their own wrong thoughts are purified, they are all-knowing." Therefore, it is because the meaning of being non-other than the realm of wisdom is manifested, because there is a connection of activity and compassion that is unique to the self, and because the wrong thoughts of the self are purified from the root that they perceive. Furthermore, in other tantras it is said: "Wrong thoughts and investigations are completely purified, Because they are not other than the realm of wisdom, Because they are connected by great compassion, All six realms and times appear without exception." There are three ways: perceiving without focusing on anything with the wisdom that knows the suchness of enlightenment; perceiving without obstructing anything with the wisdom that knows the extent of enlightenment; and perceiving all as non-dual with the wisdom that knows mind or non-duality. Thirdly, avoiding disputation is twofold: general avoidance of disputation and specific avoidance of disputation regarding the extent of wisdom. The first has two parts: refutation and response. First, if the Buddhas perceive beings to be trained, do they perceive them by making them objects, or do they perceive them without making them objects, or do they perceive objects and subjects as non-dual? If it is like the first, the Buddhas would become possessors of grasping and being grasped, because both object and subject are present. For example, like eye consciousness and form. If it is like the second, it is not appropriate to perceive because it is not an object, for example, like eye consciousness and sound. If it is like the third, the word "perceive" does not apply because the object of perception and the perceiver are not established. For example, like the eye seeing the eye. The answer is twofold: to broaden the scope of speech and to give a narrow answer. The first is to say that they perceive by making them objects, they also perceive without making them objects, and they also perceive objects and subjects as non-dual. The first is that, from the perspective of the wisdom that knows the extent of enlightenment, the object of perception and the
Chinese
就像堪布一样，不间断地观看。如《说续》中说：普贤至上智慧心中，先前不停止，后来不遮蔽，形态的差别如时，智慧各自明晰无差别。如是说。那么会变成具有能取所取吗？不会变成，因为能见所见的显现不间断，并且那二者没有触及边际而领悟的缘故。那也是在《总集经》第四十二品中说：楞伽之主那些殊胜者们，不从真如中移动，众生界的意念无边无际，声音和陀罗尼和行为无边无际，没有不了解的，没有不听闻的，没有不见的，没有不解释的。如是说。以及《法身无生觉性续》中说：无分别智慧心，无论什么都清晰，全部知晓。如是说。《续末》中说：婆罗门女和有瑕疵者，看到猎人的仆人时，产生希望和疑惑的心，如同主人很好地看到一样，同样你观看众生。也讲述这样的故事。也观看没有作为对境的，从证悟者的如实知晓的智慧的层面，不对境和有境作意，不作意而知晓。那也是在《七十颂》中说：之后菩提心胜者普作王，观看并且思索一切法无生平等，什么也不说而安住。如是说。那么观看本身不合理吗？对无有对境观看无有并不相违，因为正等觉佛陀也，智慧无对境什么也不看。如是说。第三，也观看对境和有境无有分别，从心或无分别知晓的智慧的层面，能见所见无有分别地观看。那也是在其他经中说：不从自身以外，以自身之义，如镜子般观看。如是说。那么以什么观看什么呢？观看本身不适用这个词语吗？体性上对境和知识等一切法无有分别，如实地观看就是非常殊胜的观看，因此适用这个词语，在第二十六品中说：以现量见见到无见，是现量见的眼睛，因此也称其为一切智者的眼睛。
English
Just like Khampo, he sees without interruption. As it says in the Explanatory Tantra: In the heart of Samantabhadra's supreme wisdom, the former does not cease, and the latter does not obscure. The distinctions of forms are as timely, and there is no difference in the clarity of each wisdom. So it is said. Then, will it become one with grasping and being grasped? It will not become so, because the appearance of what is seen and the seer is uninterrupted, and because they are understood without touching the extremes. That is also said in the forty-second chapter of the General Sutra: Those noble ones, the lords of Lanka, without moving from Suchness, have boundless awareness of the realms of sentient beings, and there is nothing that they do not know, do not hear, do not see, and do not explain of the boundless sounds, mantras, and actions. So it is said. And in the Dharma Body, the Tantra of Unborn Awareness, it says: The mind of non-conceptual wisdom, clearly knows everything, whatever it may be. So it is said. In the End of the Lineage, it says: When the Brahmin woman and the flawed one see the hunter's servant, a mind of hope and doubt arises, just as the master sees well. Likewise, you see beings. Such a story is also told. He also sees without making it an object, from the perspective of the wisdom of the enlightened one who knows things as they are, without focusing on object and subject, knowing without focusing. That is also said in the Seventieth: Then, the Bodhisattva Samvara, the King of All-Doers, seeing and contemplating that all dharmas are equal in being unborn, remained without saying anything. So it is said. Then, is seeing itself unreasonable? It is not contradictory to see the absence of an object in the absence of an object, because even the perfectly enlightened Buddha, with wisdom without an object, does not see anything. So it is said. Thirdly, he also sees object and subject as inseparable, from the perspective of the mind or the wisdom of knowing without separation, seeing the seen and the seer as inseparable. That is also said in others: Not from oneself, but through the meaning of oneself, it will be seen as in a mirror. So it is said. Then, with what does one see what, so that the word 'seeing' itself does not apply? Seeing that all dharmas, such as objects and knowledge, are inseparable in nature, as they are, is the most excellent seeing, so the word applies. In the Twenty-sixth, it says: Seeing the unseen with manifest seeing is the eye of manifest seeing. Therefore, it is also called the eye of the all-knowing one.
English
Sa so. Secondly, if explained from a narrow perspective, it means not to fabricate and say that it is observed as an "object," nor to slander and say that it is not observed as an "object," but rather to be liberated from the names of object and subject, and simply to observe without differentiation. This is what was said above, and in the 'Essence Gathering Sutra': 'The Dharmakaya teacher, Kuntuzangpo (藏文：ཀུན་བཟང་), fully knows all great wisdom.' Secondly, the debate and refutation of various distinctions are: Some say that when the Buddha knows and sees the suffering of the three lower realms, etc., does he know it by experiencing it, or does he know it without experiencing it? If it is the former, it would lead to being conceptual; if it is the latter, it is not reasonable, just as the taste of food that has not been eaten cannot be known. The answer is: Some argue that even if the Buddha has not personally experienced the suffering of samsara, he can still know it, for example, a skilled doctor knows the condition of the disease by examining the body's pulse. Although he knows it in this way, the doctor does not need to personally experience the suffering of the disease. Some try to reconcile it in this way. To this, Rushangpa said that if that were the case, it would lead to only knowing generalities through inference. Therefore, both the debate and the refutation are mistaken views. The terms of experiencing and not experiencing are applicable to the accumulation path and preparation path with outflows, but below the path of seeing and the path of meditation without outflows, because the nature of reality has manifested, it is free from the debate of experiencing and not experiencing, let alone the Buddha, it is just a debate and refutation that shames self-awareness. From the perspective of the cause, because it is observed without conceptualization, it transcends the calculation and expression of experiencing and not experiencing, and knows and sees in a transcendent way. For example, a sage with clairvoyance can know the state of mind of others suffering in dreams. As it is said in the 'Ratnakuta Sutra': 'Like in a young girl's dream, a single son is born and dies, joy and sorrow arise, so you see beings.' This is what is said. This only points out the faults of the predecessors, but one's own view does not seem to fully conform to the Middle Way. Since it is the teaching of the guru, it should be examined and its essence taken. In general, all the wisdom of the Buddha is contained in suchness and allness. First, it is the reality of knowable things.
Chinese
是为智。就自性而言，所观之境的众生与能观之主宰的胜者二者无别，胜者即是了知此。第二是，就实相而言虽是如此，然因众生未能如是了悟，故观见其为痛苦所折磨。因此，对彼亦生起大悲。一般而言，密咒之中，大圆满之论典，就自生之智慧，从功德之分，无论如何安立名相，亦是无别地了知且无别地观见，除此之外，难以有其他增益。第四个共同要义是开示观见后生起大悲之理。第七品中说：“我乃大悲之自性。”以及《释续》中说：“大悲智慧之光芒，催动而开展。”由此可知，彼有三，即大悲之因缘、生起之理与种类。第一，因是导师任运成就之事业，犹如如意宝珠一般。智慧秘密中说：“光明法界中安住时，大悲事业遍布十方，满足所化之所愿，显现如如意宝珠。”如是说。缘是所化有情业清净者，如帝释天与护世者一般宣说。对业不清净者，亦于相应之处生起，以其存在而显现。又于彼中说：“于何众生之清净相，于何者生起相应之大悲，若有具缘所化，则大悲如所化般生起，若无任何所化，大悲事业于何显现。”如是说。第二，本体是二无别，然生者与生因亦是二无别，却于所化之相上显现如生起一般。又，若能了悟佛与有情无别为一，则称其为生起大悲。如是说。第三，其他典籍中说：“大悲于所化，恒常相续自性力，与境相遇而显现。”如是说。以及《乘灯论》中说：“恒常相续自性力，相遇与显现四者。”由此计数为四。第一，恒常相续生起大悲，犹如大河之流一般，即导师普作王