English
If that is ja (Tibetan: ཛ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ज, Sanskrit Romanization: ja, Chinese literal meaning: ja), then everything is light. In the position of the third foot, the so-called Gavalku is also ja (Tibetan: ཛ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ज, Sanskrit Romanization: ja, Chinese literal meaning: ja), because the end of ta (Tibetan: ཏ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: त, Sanskrit Romanization: ta, Chinese literal meaning: ta) also becomes light. The third is the one with a curved entrance, and after the fourth letter of the first and third feet, there needs to be one that is all light. This one doesn't have the third. The fourth is also just the extent of ma (Tibetan: མ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: म, Sanskrit Romanization: ma, Chinese literal meaning: ma), and the seventh letter of the fourth foot is also light, or the seventh of the second and fourth can be light. However, in this one, the seventh letter of the second foot of the first shloka is tsa of "caryah," and that is not light. Also in the shlokas below, the de of deshi de, the nu of nusmrita, and the mukra of mukta, these three are not light. In the different "yangmas," the fifth "bha-yangs" is after the fourth letter of all feet, and the beginning of bha (Tibetan: བྷ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: भ, Sanskrit Romanization: bha, Chinese literal meaning: bha) is heavy. The sixth "ra-yangs" is replacing bha (Tibetan: བྷ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: भ, Sanskrit Romanization: bha, Chinese literal meaning: bha) with ra (Tibetan: ར་, Sanskrit Devanagari: र, Sanskrit Romanization: ra, Chinese literal meaning: ra), and the middle of ra (Tibetan: ར་, Sanskrit Devanagari: र, Sanskrit Romanization: ra, Chinese literal meaning: ra) is light. The seventh "na-yangs" is in that position, na (Tibetan: ན་, Sanskrit Devanagari: न, Sanskrit Romanization: na, Chinese literal meaning: na) is all light. The eighth "ta-yangs" is, replacing that, the end of ta (Tibetan: ཏ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: त, Sanskrit Romanization: ta, Chinese literal meaning: ta) is light. The ninth "ma-yangs" is to that extent, na (Tibetan: ན་, Sanskrit Devanagari: न, Sanskrit Romanization: na, Chinese literal meaning: na) is all heavy. These are needed, but none of these meet any of the characteristics. The tenth is also not "kha-go bla-re'i tsan," because "bla-re" has two sa (Tibetan: ས་, Sanskrit Devanagari: स, Sanskrit Romanization: sa, Chinese literal meaning: sa) endings that are heavy. In order to include that, after the first letter of all feet, neither sa (Tibetan: ས་, Sanskrit Devanagari: स, Sanskrit Romanization: sa, Chinese literal meaning: sa) nor na (Tibetan: ན་, Sanskrit Devanagari: न, Sanskrit Romanization: na, Chinese literal meaning: na) are, and after the fourth letter of the second and fourth feet, the middle of ja (Tibetan: ཛ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ज, Sanskrit Romanization: ja, Chinese literal meaning: ja) is heavy. Among these, although only the sa (Tibetan: ས་, Sanskrit Devanagari: स, Sanskrit Romanization: sa, Chinese literal meaning: sa) ending of nabibrikra and valabhe is heavy, most of the other verses do not have ja (Tibetan: ཛ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ज, Sanskrit Romanization: ja, Chinese literal meaning: ja) etc. after the fourth, so it is uncertain. Also, the general characteristics of special "kha-go" are: the fifth is all light, the seventh of the second and fourth is light, and what the sixth is, one must know is heavy, and the remaining vowels are uncertain. Like this, seeing this is not obvious. If that is the case, the way of exceeding the meter has been explained. If you have heard of meter before, that is enough. Even if it is not like that, the beginning of bha (Tibetan: བྷ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: भ, Sanskrit Romanization: bha, Chinese literal meaning: bha) is heavy, the beginning of ya (Tibetan: ཡ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: य, Sanskrit Romanization: ya, Chinese literal meaning: ya) is light, the end of sa (Tibetan: ས་, Sanskrit Devanagari: स, Sanskrit Romanization: sa, Chinese literal meaning: sa) is heavy, the end of ta (Tibetan: ཏ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: त, Sanskrit Romanization: ta, Chinese literal meaning: ta) is light, the middle of ja (Tibetan: ཛ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ज, Sanskrit Romanization: ja, Chinese literal meaning: ja) is heavy, the middle of ra (Tibetan: ར་, Sanskrit Devanagari: र, Sanskrit Romanization: ra, Chinese literal meaning: ra) is light, ma (Tibetan: མ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: म, Sanskrit Romanization: ma, Chinese literal meaning: ma) is all heavy, na (Tibetan: ན་, Sanskrit Devanagari: न, Sanskrit Romanization: na, Chinese literal meaning: na) is all light, la (Tibetan: ལ་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ल, Sanskrit Romanization: la, Chinese literal meaning: la) is light, ga (Tibetan: ག་, Sanskrit Devanagari: ग, Sanskrit Romanization: ga, Chinese literal meaning: ga) is heavy, as well as long vowels, extended vowels, and curved vowels. The first letter that exists before a stacked letter, and the letter with an ending that has the same meaning as it, is heavy. In general, letters have light and heavy distinctions. In India, there are subtle differences between the theory of sound, meter, and learning to read. Furthermore, the language of translating this verse
Chinese
如果需要从分别产生的词的对应词，说是 विवेकज（藏文，梵文天城体，विवेकज，梵文罗马拟音，vivekaja，汉语字面意思：由辨别而生）。将Tista翻译成高兴，我认为是和Tusta混淆了。认为परं परः（藏文，梵文天城体，परं परः，梵文罗马拟音，paraṃ paraḥ，汉语字面意思：从一个到另一个）是“一次又一次”的对应词，但不是。意思是“从一个到另一个”或“从其他到其他”。以这些为例，还有其他一些不正确的对应词。因此，可以肯定的是，内外任何人都不会信任这些词。一般来说，外道有“八支瑜伽”的说法。其中也有生命能量控制和收摄感官的名字。像这样的，内外道共同之处也有很多。也有内道的东西被外道偷走的情况，所以任何这样的情况都不能作为理由。例如，裸体派也有和内道一样的五戒和十善的说法。दृषभ（藏文，梵文天城体，दृषभ，梵文罗马拟音，dṛṣabha，汉语字面意思：雄牛）等，他们自己的二十四位导师被称为佛陀。अर्हत्（藏文，梵文天城体，अर्हत्，梵文罗马拟音，arhat，汉语字面意思：阿罗汉）被称为敌人征服者。此外，还有比丘和堪布等，有很多和佛教徒名字相同的情况。或者，有些方面也几乎相同，比如“黑暗、尘埃、勇气”这三个，这三个功德最初来自数论派的论典。之后，其他外道论典中也有提到。但在内道的续部，《金刚鬘》、《集密》和《胜乐轮》等中有很多阐述。有些只是名字相同，有些意义也有些相似。意义上有很多根本不同之处，但有些相似也没有问题。十四种善行，我认为没有可以安立为过失的说法，就像许多不了解的佛教徒和野蛮人一样，一直以来都有一种感觉，认为其他人的所有话语都只是自己的过失。对于在三颂中没有过失感到惊讶，所以说“智者应辨别！”因为仍然有一种不相信的表情。无需说皈依。就行为而言，如果从理论上讲，有些外道论典本身没有过失，有些则有很多错误的行为。但如果按照现在的实践来看，如果将藏族僧人和外道的持杖者或裸体派的僧人进行比较，那就太可笑了。在我们藏地，说的时候说这不行，那不行。
English
If you need a corresponding word for a word derived from discrimination, it is called विवेकजः (Tibetan, Devanagari, विवेकज, Romanized Sanskrit, vivekaja, literal Chinese meaning: born of discrimination). Translating Tiṣṭha as happy, I think it is confused with Tuṣṭa. Thinking that परं परः (Tibetan, Devanagari, परं परः, Romanized Sanskrit, paraṃ paraḥ, literal Chinese meaning: from one to another) is a corresponding word for "again and again," but it is not. It means "from one to another" or "from other to other." With these as examples, there are still other minor incorrect corresponding words. Therefore, it is certain that no one, internal or external, will trust these words. In general, external systems have the term "eight-limbed yoga." Among them, there are also names for life energy control and sense withdrawal. Like these, there are many similarities between internal and external systems. There are also cases where things from the internal system are stolen by the external system, so any such case cannot be used as a reason. For example, the naked ones also have the same five precepts and ten virtues as the internal system. दृषभ (Tibetan, Devanagari, दृषभ, Romanized Sanskrit, dṛṣabha, literal Chinese meaning: bull), etc., their own twenty-four teachers are called Buddhas. अर्हत् (Tibetan, Devanagari, अर्हत्, Romanized Sanskrit, arhat, literal Chinese meaning: Arhat) is called the enemy conqueror. In addition, there are also monks and abbots, etc., there are many cases where the names are the same as Buddhists. Or, some aspects are almost the same, such as the three qualities of "darkness, dust, courage," these three qualities originally came from the Samkhya school's treatises. After that, other external treatises also mentioned it. But in the internal tantras, the Vajra Garland, Samputa, and Chakrasamvara, etc., have many elaborations. Some are only the same in name, and some have similar meanings. There are many fundamental differences in meaning, but there is no problem if some are similar. The fourteen virtues, I think there is no statement that can be established as a fault, just like many ignorant Buddhists and barbarians, there has always been a feeling that all the words of others are only their own faults. Surprised that there are no faults in the three verses, so it says, "The wise should discern!" Because there is still an expression of disbelief. No need to say taking refuge. In terms of behavior, if speaking theoretically, some external treatises themselves have no faults, and some have many wrong behaviors. But if comparing Tibetan monks with the staff-holding or naked monks of the external systems according to the current practice, it is too ridiculous. In our Tibet, when speaking, we say this is not allowed, that is not allowed.
Chinese
我以“我不行”的态度行事，但当真正付诸实践时，却做一切罪恶之事。自己做，教导别人做，并让别人也去做。如果施主僧侣等做了巨大的罪恶，会非常高兴，因为大家都彼此心知肚明。所以，最好还是把说人是“恶劣外道”的言论放在一边。因为印度外道都不允许做的罪恶，西藏的喇嘛、堪布、瑜伽士们却都非常乐意去做。还有，这个“我承认”的说法也太粗糙了。外内二者在见解和修行上差别很大，否则，仅凭细微的秘密关键是无法区分的。还有，在这里，突然出现一个无关的十一句偈颂。这其中的前六句似乎是在讽刺格鲁派的宗义。总的来说，即使在这些微小的文字中，没有任何前后文的解释就出现这样的讽刺，这表明对方对格鲁派非常不满。然而，实际上，关于“错乱之基的世俗谛成立”以及“拥有佛的标志和傲慢”等内容，如果承认世俗谛成立，即使阻止了作为标志的真实成立的阻碍等，也仅仅是皈依和形式，不能算是佛教徒，这种说法太过分了。因为世俗谛成立的遍及性，即使不诽谤善的一方，也已经将某些世俗谛设定为成立了。如果那样就能成为佛教徒，那么经部宗、唯识宗、三者就都要变成非佛教徒了，那又该怎么说呢？这与“佛法有四种，随心所欲先取之”相矛盾。认为世俗谛由量成立，虽然与自空见的中观派和宁玛派在言语承认上不一致，但因为认为这个量仅仅是世俗的量，所以在意义上与宁玛派也没有什么不同。“依靠错乱之处无法消除错乱”的说法，因为没有遍及性，所以是合理的。因为佛陀自己在经中说：“世界万象如是存在，然而坚定者们会调伏对此的欲望。”这与经文相违背。所谓八支修法。
English
I act with the attitude of "I am not capable," but when it comes to actual practice, I do everything that is sinful. I do it myself, teach others to do it, and encourage others to do it as well. If patrons, monks, and others commit great sins, they are very happy because everyone is mutually aware of each other's intentions. Therefore, it seems better to set aside the talk of calling people "evil heretics." Because the sins that even Indian outsiders would not allow, Tibetan lamas, abbots, and yogis are all very happy to engage in. Also, this statement of "I admit" is too crude. There is a great difference in view and practice between the outer and inner, otherwise, subtle secret keys alone cannot make a distinction. Also, here, an irrelevant eleven-line verse suddenly appears. The first six lines of this seem to be satirizing the Gelugpa tenets. In general, even in these small letters, without any explanation of the preceding and following words, such satire appears, which indicates that the other party is very dissatisfied with the Gelugpa. However, in reality, regarding the content of "the basis of delusion, the conventional truth, is established" and "possessing the signs and arrogance of a Buddha," if the conventional truth is admitted to be established, even if one prevents the obstruction of the establishment of truth as a sign, it is only refuge and form, and cannot be considered a Buddhist, which is an overstatement. Because the pervasiveness of the establishment of conventional truth, even if one does not slander the virtuous side, some conventional truths have already been established. If that is how one becomes a Buddhist, then how should the Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and the three be considered non-Buddhists? This contradicts "The Buddha's teachings are of four kinds, take what you desire first." The view that conventional truth is established by valid cognition, although it is inconsistent with the words of the Svātantrika-Madhyamaka and Nyingma schools, because it is believed that this valid cognition is only conventional valid cognition, there is no difference in meaning from the Nyingma schools. The statement that "one cannot eliminate delusion by relying on the place of delusion" is reasonable because it lacks pervasiveness. Because the Buddha himself said in the sutra: "The various phenomena of the world exist as they are, yet the steadfast ones will subdue their desires for them." This contradicts the scriptures. The so-called eight-limbed practice.