English
All those who desire, seek scriptures or non-scriptures, not because of poverty. However, if one studies more diligently and enters after understanding, it becomes meaningful, and thus, by the cause of being unerring to those who are able to see, it will also enter others. For worldly terms are mostly like that. If one enters after thoroughly examining a person, then there is only non-entry, because it is impossible to know someone who has become like that. It is not because of not wanting, for that is to show what is not inverted. For example: Valid measures are for easy attainment, is this so or not so, whether others have faults or are faultless, it is difficult to understand, how can others know? If people enter into what is correct and what is the opposite from the qualities and faults arising from the mind, then those are also beyond the senses, and if they are to be inferred from the actions of body and speech and words arising from oneself, then terms are mostly preceded by thought, and can also be done in other ways, because it is the state of people wanting to enter, and those thoughts are also diverse. Therefore, if this is uncertain for the sake of seeking reasons, how can it be understood? If someone asks, are there not people like that who are without fault? All that depends on decline and excellence, because it is together with the inconsistent side, and through habit becomes one's own, so in some people, defilements are exhausted. The exhaustion of defilements is also difficult to know. This fault is of the nature of decline and excellence, making special what is overwhelmed by the inconsistent side, and proving it like humans and so forth. Those are those that arise from conceptualization, and if they are close, then some qualities of the mind do not become special from habit, and when it becomes clear, it becomes of the nature of destruction without followers, like fire and so forth. Therefore, it will also become unsatisfactory. What is meant by faultlessness, then, is like this: even if there exists the nature of becoming the inconsistent side of fault, but the cause
Chinese
如果像某种观点一样，过失也会产生，如果有人问：这是否类似于产生过失自性的不顺品？第七品，过失 不存在，就像这样：无害与真实义，以自性颠倒，即使努力也无法阻止，因为心执着于那一方。本来就无法在没有努力的情况下阻止，这就像洁净者想要头盖骨一样。努力也无法获得和阻止的自性，是因为见到功德和过失而产生的，但那也不是存在于会变成不顺品自性的士夫的过失中，因为那是无害的缘故。因为已经舍弃了所有过失，并且远离了完全缠绕和依赖于生的痛苦，以及完全寂灭的安乐，以及没有厌倦的缘故。不是真实义的，从亲近的力量中产生的，也因为从相续中完全阻止了执着而不会改变。不是真实义，因为是从事物的力量中产生的缘故。过失不是真实义，不会损害变成对治品一方自性的东西。因此，过失不是产生的，即使有努力，具有分别念的心和面容也是因为见到功德和过失而产生的，但那也不是存在于会变成不顺品自性的士夫的过失中，因为那是无害的缘故。一切种类都，是从坏聚见中产生的。那不应理，因为执着于那处，从那处产生“是”等等。如果没有“我不是”、“我的不是”这样的见解的执着，就不会对任何事物产生贪执，没有随后的贪执，就不会对任何事物产生嗔恨，因为没有我的，对于我的没有亲近损害的，以及对于摧毁亲近损害的，那是不存在的缘故。因此，从串习相似的种类中产生的我见，会产生我所执。因为那些也会在那处产生贪执和嗔恨等等，所以，所有过失都是从坏聚见中产生的。
English
If, like a certain view, faults also arise, if someone asks: Is this similar to the arising of the unfavorable side of the nature of faults? Seventh fascicle, Faults This does not exist, like this: harmlessness and true meaning, with the reversal of nature, even if effort is made, it cannot be stopped, because the mind clings to that side. It is not possible to stop it without effort by nature, this is like a clean person wanting a skull. Effort also cannot obtain and prevent the nature, because it is produced by seeing merits and faults, but that is also not in the faults of the person who will become the nature of the unfavorable side, because it is harmless. Because all faults have been abandoned, and because it is far from the suffering of being completely entangled and dependent on birth, and because of the happiness of complete extinction, and because of no weariness. Not of true meaning, arising from the power of closeness, also because it does not change because it completely prevents clinging from the continuum. Not of true meaning, because it arises from the power of things. Faults are not of true meaning, and do not harm what has become the nature of the side of the antidote. Therefore, faults are not produced, even if there is effort, the mind and face with discrimination are produced by seeing merits and faults, but that is also not in the faults of the person who will become the nature of the unfavorable side, because it is harmless. All kinds are born from the view of the perishable collection. That is unreasonable, because clinging to that place, from that place arises "is" and so on. If there is no clinging to the view of "I am not", "mine is not", there will be no attachment to anything, without subsequent attachment, there will be no hatred towards anything, because there is no me, for me there is no close harm, and for destroying close harm, that does not exist. Therefore, the view of self arising from the habit of similar kinds will give rise to the clinging to self. Because those also produce attachment and hatred etc. in that place, therefore, all faults arise from the view of the perishable collection.
Chinese
因为自己也不了解，所以叫做无明。因此说，愚痴是罪恶的根源。另外还有坏聚见，断除它是因为断除了愚痴是罪恶的根源，因为没有愚痴就不会产生罪恶。在其他地方，坏聚见也是（罪恶的根源）。如果说这个和那个是主要宣说的，那就会有变化，因为从多种（因素）产生的罪恶，有些是从一种（因素）产生的。如果两者都是主要的，那么就不是依靠单独宣说来美化（教义）了。如果两种方式都一起宣说，就没有矛盾。主要也是因为对它们的亲近，因为断除了它们，罪恶也就断除了。因此，从坏聚见产生的罪恶，可以通过修习其对治法——证悟无我来断除。难以理解的罪恶的止息，也可以通过它所宣说的内容来理解。依赖于人的话语不是圣教，因为作者难以理解。话语是虚假的根源，因为罪恶依赖于人。不由人造作，具有真实意义。这是（某些人）所说的。所有的圣教不可能是错误的，因为错误的根源——罪恶，是依赖于人的。不由人造作，具有真实意义。这是其他人的观点，因为没有原因，所以成立没有结果。对于这样说的人，其他人会说：话语是真实的根源，因为功德依赖于人。不由人造作，难道不是虚假的意义吗？就像看到具有贪欲等烦恼的人说谎一样，具有慈爱等功德的人也会说真话。因此，就像话语依赖于人而成为虚假的意义一样，也可能是真实的意义。如果它是虚假的，那么它也是虚假的，这样一来，它要么不存在，要么颠倒了。声音不是与生俱来的意义，而是来自约定俗成，因为从它那里可以理解意义，就像身体的姿势等一样。ར
English
Because one does not understand oneself, it is called ignorance. Therefore, it is said that delusion is the root of all faults. Furthermore, there is the view of the aggregates, and it is abandoned because it is abandoned. Delusion is said to be the root of faults, because faults do not arise when there is no delusion. In other places, the view of the aggregates is also (the root of faults). If it is said that this and that are the main teachings, then it will change, because some of the faults that arise from many (factors) arise from one (factor). If both are the main ones, then it does not depend on beautifying (the doctrine) by teaching each one separately. If both aspects are taught together, there is no contradiction. The main thing is also because of the closeness to them, because when they are abandoned, the faults are also abandoned. Therefore, the faults that arise from the view of the aggregates can be abandoned by practicing its antidote—the realization of selflessness. The cessation of faults, which is difficult to understand, can also be understood through what it teaches. Words that depend on a person are not scripture, because the author is difficult to understand. Words are the root of falsehood, because faults depend on a person. Not made by a person, having true meaning. This is what (some people) say. All scriptures cannot be wrong, because the root of error—faults—depends on a person. Not made by a person, having true meaning. This is the view of others, because without a cause, it establishes that there is no result. To those who say this, others will say: Words are the root of truth, because qualities depend on a person. Not made by a person, is it not a false meaning? Just as one sees a person with desire and other afflictions telling lies, so a person with love and other qualities will tell the truth. Therefore, just as words depend on a person and become a false meaning, so too may they be a true meaning. If it is false, then it is also false, and in that case, it either does not exist or is reversed. Sounds are not inherently meaningful, but come from convention, because meaning can be understood from them, like bodily gestures and so on. ར
Chinese
是故，随顺是可行的，因为在约定之时，对该意愿已作了约定。对于自性成立的事物，由于不能以意愿来指示，所以那些无意义的事物，通过人的完善之举，才能变得有意义。然而，那些需要通过那些事物来完善的事物，仅仅是人所为之事，而非理性的产生。因为那样会混淆事物的意义。即使人以其他方式约定，也与不同于此的人的法则相似，没有矛盾。因此，如果这个颠倒了，那么由自己所作的约定产生的对事物的理解也会颠倒。因此，从何处颠倒，它才是真实的意义呢？如果仅仅是人所为，而非约定，那么，意义被理解的原因，约定依赖于人，词语并非人所为，因此可能会颠倒。如果这不是人所为，那又有什么用呢？从约定中理解意义，如果那不是人所为，那也会颠倒。通过其他方式约定，以实现戒律的天堂之语也会颠倒。因此，即使它不能如实地显示事物，那也可能是个缺陷。如果关系不是人所为，那么约定将在不理解的情况下被理解。如果那样变化，那么声音的未建立关系，对于事物，人们会以其他方式颠倒理解，因此这不是缺陷。那么，现在该做什么约定呢？从何处理解意义，那就是关系。如果那不是人所为，那么这与约定无关。如果不依赖于理解，那又怎么是关系呢？ 如果约定使那些清晰，那么其他的理解将变得无意义。即使有关系，如果没有清晰，那就不是理解的原因。约定也使这个清晰。然而，如果接近于成立，那不是原因又有什么用呢？关系的作为，不就是产生对意义的理解吗？那就是约定本身。
English
Therefore, being in accordance is feasible, because at the time of convention, the intention of that has been agreed upon. For things established by their own nature, since they cannot be indicated by intention, those meaningless things become meaningful through the perfect actions of people. However, those things that need to be perfected by those things are merely what people do, not the arising of reason. Because that would confuse the meaning of things. Even if a person makes an agreement in another way, it is similar to the laws of people different from this, without contradiction. Therefore, if this is reversed, then the understanding of things arising from the convention made by oneself will also be reversed. Therefore, from where is it reversed, it is the true meaning? If it is merely what a person does, not an agreement, then, the cause of meaning being understood, the agreement depends on the person, words are not what a person does, therefore it may be reversed. If this is not what a person does, then what is the use? Understanding meaning from convention, if that is not what a person does, then it will also be reversed. Agreeing in other ways, the words of heaven to achieve discipline will also be reversed. Therefore, even if it cannot show things as they are, that may be a defect. If the relationship is not what a person does, then the agreement will be understood without understanding. If it changes like that, then the unestablished relationship of sound, for things, people will understand in other ways in reverse, therefore this is not a defect. So, what agreement should be made now? From where is meaning understood, that is the relationship. If that is not what a person does, then this is independent of agreement. If it does not depend on understanding, then how is it a relationship? If the agreement makes those clear, then other understandings will become meaningless. Even if there is a relationship, if there is no clarity, then it is not the cause of understanding. The agreement also makes this clear. However, if it is close to being established, what is the use of not being a cause? Isn't the action of relationship just to generate the understanding of meaning? That is the agreement itself.