Chinese
因为不可改变的缘故。因为超离了思辨的范畴。被称为不可思议的法界，因为是各自自己觉知的缘故，所以舍弃了一切声音和思虑。这里的舍弃是指，必须理解为超离了声音思虑的范畴。那不可思议的法界，是因为那些成为世俗心、意和行境的对境，如幻化般的法，从本初就是清净的缘故。第四，驳斥认为在成立外境时，世间理性能量强大的观点。此处的立宗者是，彻底摧毁了名相执着的错觉，无畏的月称论师及其追随者。他们这样说：你无法成立外境不存在，因为名言量妨害了外境不存在。理由是，世间认为存在的，自宗的宗派论者必须承认，而且也是佛陀所赞同的。如《三律仪经》中说：世间与我争论，我不与世间争论，世间认为存在的，我也认为存在。世间认为不存在的，我也认为不存在。又如《七十空性论》中说：住、生、灭、有、无，低劣或平等或特殊，佛陀依世间名言说，非依真实而说。因此，安立有无等一切，都是依世间如何称说的名言而安立的。此外，声称一切法都是内心自性的宗派论者们，你们这些有法者，不应该否认世间所公认的外境，因为如果世间不损害你，就应依世间来否定这外境，你和世间在这里争论，之后我将依赖谁更有力量，因为世间更具力量。如《入中论》中说：若世间不害汝，应依世间此破除，汝与
English
Because it is immutable. Because it transcends the realm of speculation. It is called the inconceivable realm of reality, because it is self-awareness by each individual, therefore, it abandons all sounds and thoughts. The abandonment here means that it must be understood as transcending the realm of sound and thought. That inconceivable realm of reality is primordially pure because of those phenomena that have become the objects of experience for mundane mind, intellect, and formations, like illusions. Fourthly, refuting the view that worldly reasoning is powerful in establishing external objects. Here, the proponent is Chandrakirti, the fearless one who has completely destroyed the illusion of clinging to characteristics, along with his followers. They say as follows: You cannot establish that external objects do not exist, because conventional valid cognition contradicts the non-existence of external objects. The reason is that what the world considers to exist must be accepted by the proponents of our own school, and it is also approved by the Buddha. As stated in the Sutra on the Three Vows: The world argues with me, but I do not argue with the world; whatever the world considers to exist, I also consider to exist. Whatever the world considers not to exist, I also consider not to exist. Furthermore, as stated in the Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness: Existence, non-existence, abiding, arising, ceasing, inferior, equal, or superior, the Buddha speaks according to the conventions of the world, not according to the ultimate truth. Therefore, all establishments of existence, non-existence, and so on, are established according to the conventions of how they are spoken of in the world. Furthermore, you proponents who claim that all phenomena are of the nature of the inner mind, you subjects, should not deny the external objects that are recognized in the world, because if the world does not harm you, you should rely on the world itself to refute this external object, and you and the world should argue here, and afterwards I will rely on whoever is more powerful, because the world is more powerful. As stated in the Introduction to the Middle Way: If the world does not harm you, you should rely on the world to refute this here, you and
Chinese
說道：「在此世間以爭辯，之後依仗有勢力的我。」等等，誤解了上面剛引用的經句，說在成立外境等時，世間的理路是最有力量的。 對此進行破斥：那麼，對你來說，女人的身體，應是清淨的。因為世間認為是清淨的，此理路是有力量的，所以宗法成立，周遍也已經默認了。不能在根本上承認，因為經中說：「身體是不淨物的三十六種自性。」與此相違。 此外，我應是恆常存在的常法。因為在世間人看來，我是常法，以理路成立。因為世間人的理路是有力量的。 此外，如同說一切動靜都是造物主自在天等所造一樣，你也應當承認一切世間都是造物主所造。為什麼呢？因為你認為在成立外境等時，世間的理路是有力量的。 此外，佛陀的智慧應當顯現色等外境。因為世間人認為有外境顯現。因為世間所認可的，佛陀也認可。 如果你承認，那麼，佛陀的智慧，應當如眾生所見一般顯現色等世俗諦的法。因為在成立外境時，世間人的理路是有力量的。因為在他們的理路中，外境是真實存在的。 因為如果是真實存在的法，就必然在佛陀的智慧中顯現。 如果你說也承認，那麼，像水一樣的同一個事物，由於業力積累方式的不同，對天人來說是甘露，對餓鬼來說是膿血，對人來說是清涼清澈的水，有各種不同的顯現方式。那麼，在佛陀的智慧中，顯現為與哪一種相同？ 顯現為與其中任何一種相同，沒有任何正當的理由說它與其他不同，也很難確定它與一切都相同。如果在佛陀的智慧中顯現為與一切都相同，那麼同一個事物就...
English
It is said, "In this world, by disputation, and afterwards relying on the powerful self." etc., misunderstanding the sutra passage just quoted above, they say that in establishing external objects etc., worldly reasoning is the most powerful. Refuting this: Then, for you, the body of a woman should be pure. Because whatever is known as pure in the world, that reasoning is powerful, therefore the sign is actually established, and the pervasion is implicitly admitted. It cannot be admitted at the root, because the sutra says, "The body is the nature of thirty-six impure substances," which contradicts this. Furthermore, the self should be permanent, existing forever. Because in the view of worldly people, the self is permanent, established by reasoning. Because worldly reasoning is powerful. Furthermore, just as it is said that all moving and unmoving things are made by a creator, such as Ishvara, you should also admit that all the world is made by a creator. Why? Because you believe that worldly reasoning is powerful in establishing external objects etc. Furthermore, external objects such as forms should appear to the wisdom of the Buddha. Because worldly people believe that external objects appear. Because whatever is accepted by the world is also accepted by the Buddha. If you admit this, then the wisdom of the Buddha, should appear as the conventional phenomena such as forms appear to sentient beings. Because in establishing external objects, worldly reasoning is powerful. Because in their reasoning, external objects are truly established. Because if a phenomenon is truly established, it is necessarily pervaded by appearing in the wisdom of the Buddha. If you say you also admit this, then, a single object like water appears differently depending on the different ways of accumulating karma, as nectar to gods, pus to pretas, and cool, clear water to humans. So, with which of these does it appear to be consistent in the Buddha's wisdom? It appears to be consistent with any one of these, and there is no valid reason why it should not be consistent with others, and it is difficult to find a way to make it consistent with all. If it appears to be consistent with all in the Buddha's wisdom, then that single object would be...
Chinese
脓、血和甘露三者的基础相同，这样一来，就会出现对于矛盾之处不会混淆的量，以及同一个事物既被量成立是甘露，也被量成立不是甘露，从而导致量成立与不成立之间没有任何区别的过失。第五，驳斥将烦恼视为智慧的观点：大手印行者们认为烦恼和分别念是智慧，对此进行分析。首先是陈述他们的观点，然后是驳斥。首先，分别念无法转化为美好的法身，也没有其他法身遍布分别念。观察分别念产生的自性，不对其进行任何取舍、扬弃或建立，其自性即是明空赤裸的本初俱生智慧，与法身无别。认识到这一点就是认识自性。此外，我执等分别念的自性或本质并未超出智慧。无论生起何种我执、无明、贪嗔的念头，那一刹那的自性，从原始以来就超越了思维，其本质在无境中自明，安住于智慧的真实基础中。除此之外，将直接的体验、极端或歧途等视为应舍弃和否定的念头，其自性是无生的法身。明觉的能量不间断地显现是化身。明空无二地显现是报身。本质超越思维是自性身。因此，无论显现什么、呈现什么，其认知和特征，从一开始就安住于三身的运作中，并且所有显现都是本初超越思维的显现，没有掺杂任何其他事物。这是他们的观点。其次是驳斥：如果所有稳定和运动等现象的自性都是智慧，那么你为何只分析烦恼和分别念呢？没有必要。如果说有必要，因为分别念的本质是智慧，那么，无论贪欲等分别念各自的对境如何显现，只要一显现，那一刹那观察其本质，如果仅仅安住于心的明觉状态就是智慧，那么，
English
The basis of pus, blood, and nectar are the same, thus, there would be a valid cognition that does not confuse contradictions, and the same object would be validly established as nectar and also validly established as not nectar, resulting in the fault of having no distinction between what is validly established and what is not. Fifth, refuting the view that afflictions are wisdom: The Mahamudra practitioners consider afflictions and conceptual thoughts to be wisdom, and this is analyzed. First, stating their view, and then refuting it. First, conceptual thought cannot be transformed into a good Dharmakaya, nor is there another Dharmakaya that pervades conceptual thought. When looking at the nature of the arising of conceptual thought, without any acceptance or rejection, affirmation or negation, its very nature is the clear and empty, naked, primordial, co-emergent wisdom, inseparable in essence from the Dharmakaya. Recognizing this is called recognizing one's own nature. Furthermore, the nature or essence of conceptual thoughts such as self-grasping has not gone beyond wisdom. Whatever thought of self-grasping, ignorance, attachment, or aversion arises, the nature of that instant, from the beginning, transcends thought, its essence self-illuminating in the absence of an object, abiding in the actual ground of wisdom. Apart from that, the direct experience, extremes, or deviations, etc., that are considered to be abandoned and negated, their nature is the unborn Dharmakaya. The unceasing manifestation of the energy of clarity and awareness is the Nirmanakaya. The clear and empty, inseparable manifestation is the Sambhogakaya. The essence that transcends thought is the Svabhavikakaya. Therefore, whatever appears, whatever manifests, its recognition and characteristics, from the beginning, abide in the operation of the three Kayas, and all manifestations are primordial, transcending thought, without the slightest admixture of anything else. This is their view. Secondly, the refutation: If the nature of all phenomena, such as stability and movement, is wisdom, then why do you only analyze afflictions and conceptual thoughts? There is no need. If you say there is a need because the essence of conceptual thought is wisdom, then, whatever the individual objects of attachment and other conceptual thoughts may appear, as soon as they appear, if looking at their essence at that instant, merely abiding in the clear and aware state of mind is wisdom, then,
Chinese
有什么区别呢？心仅是明觉的状态，这是因为在所有粗大分别念存在与否的时候，心识的延续都不会中断。理由是，一旦确立为心，其自性就仅是明觉，因为明和觉是心的特征。此外，第二个分别念也应是智慧，因为它是分别念，并且分别念的自性是智慧是你所持观点的核心。当观察其自性时，如果分别念的生起中断且没有后续，那么这又是什么呢？这与第一个分别念是智慧有什么不同呢？因为它们是相同的。你所说的是没有区分分别念和分别念的自性。分别念的自性是空性，是不分别的，因此不是分别念。分别念的显现本身是无而显现的错觉。因此，它也不是分别念本身的自性，也不是任何其他事物的自性。如果仅仅是显现，而其自性从一开始就不存在，那么它的第一个刹那的自性怎么可能是智慧呢？这是不可能的。例如，如果石女的儿子从一开始就不存在，那么他美不美等特征也是不可能存在的。你所说的“分别念的刹那是智慧”，这个刹那是指最后时刻的刹那，还是指行为完成的刹那？如果是第一个，那是不合理的，因为最后时刻的刹那对于普通人来说是不可见的，是隐蔽的。如果是行为完成的刹那，那么在行为完成的刹那期间，贪欲等分别念会积累各种各样的业，这是显而易见的，例如刹那的缘起。因此，如果分别念的第一个刹那是真实的智慧，那么它所积累的业，是具有功德的。应成为无漏的业，因为积累它的分别念是无漏的真实智慧。如果这样说，那么这三者之间就没有一致的答案。即使我也认为一切法的自性是智慧，但因为有将烦恼和分别念作为道等特殊需要。
English
What difference is there? The mind remaining merely as clear awareness is because the continuity of mind is uninterrupted at all times, whether or not there are coarse conceptual thoughts. The reason is that once established as mind, its nature is merely clear awareness, because clarity and awareness are the characteristics of mind. Furthermore, the second moment of conceptual thought should also be wisdom, because it is conceptual thought, and the nature of conceptual thought being wisdom is the essence of your view. When looking at its nature, if the arising of conceptual thought ceases and there is no continuation, then what is this? How is this different from the first moment of conceptual thought being wisdom? Because they are the same. What you are saying is a statement that does not distinguish between conceptual thought and the nature of conceptual thought. The nature of conceptual thought is emptiness, it is non-conceptual, therefore it is not conceptual thought. The appearance of conceptual thought itself is an illusion of appearing without being. Therefore, it is not the nature of conceptual thought itself, nor is it the nature of anything else. If it is merely appearance and its nature is not established from the beginning, then how could the nature of its first moment be wisdom? It is impossible. For example, if the son of a barren woman does not exist from the beginning, then characteristics such as whether he is beautiful or not are also impossible. The moment you say "the moment of conceptual thought is wisdom," does that moment refer to the final moment or the moment of completed action? If it is the first, it is unreasonable, because the final moment is not visible to ordinary people, it is hidden. If it refers to the moment of completed action, then during the moment of completed action, conceptual thoughts such as desire accumulate various kinds of actions, which is clearly seen, like the dependent arising of moments. Therefore, if the first moment of conceptual thought is actual wisdom, then the actions it accumulates, which have merit, should become uncontaminated actions, because the conceptual thought that accumulates it is uncontaminated, actual wisdom. If you say that, then there is no consistent answer among these three. Even though I also agree that the nature of all phenomena is wisdom, there are special needs such as taking afflictions and conceptual thoughts as the path.