Chinese
如果说是以（我）的力量而来的，那么就会陷入无我的境地。仅仅是认知自性的，那个周遍是什么，请说。在众多的身体中存在，说是真实周遍。在众多的时间中周遍，说是常恒。不周遍、不常恒的，如何能作为我而存在？或者说，这个存在于瓶子等其他事物的自性中吗？如果是那样，就非常明显地是轮回了，因为存在于天神等事物的自性中。因此，如果成为解脱，那就会像虚空一样变成不存在。那样的解脱没有任何必要。唉！瑜伽士们是非常重视常恒的。或者说，从胜义谛的角度来说，我不是行为者和受用者等的所依，这完全是无明的力量所致。同样，执着等也是如此吗？对此的回答是：体验和名言，以及一切功德的所依颠倒，怎么会认为是执着呢？执着的自性不是那样的。超越一切名言的我，是依赖于石头、木头和棉花的虚空自性。因此，如果有人执着于它，那不是想要变得像它一样，因为那样就不是执着的自性了。即使是变化，也清楚地表明不是预先进行分别。因此，追求轮回更好。如果问：因为轮回的快乐不能产生完全的满足。回答说：涅槃的快乐也不能产生完全的满足。因为追求快乐是必然的，所以应该舍弃一切快乐。没有不追求快乐的行为。因此，即使一切快乐都圆满存在，仍然想要比那更殊胜的快乐，并且不断地追求那个快乐。因此，这里没有不追求的心。追求，这个词也是贪爱的异名，是非常大的痛苦。因此，一切快乐都不能产生完全的满足。
English
If it is said that it comes from the power of (the self), then it would fall into the state of non-self. What is that pervasiveness that only recognizes its own nature? Please tell. It exists in many bodies, and it is said to be truly pervasive. It is pervasive in many times, and it is said to be constant. How can something that is not pervasive and not constant exist as a self? Or is it that this exists in the nature of other things such as a pot? If that is the case, then it is very clearly samsara, because it exists in the nature of gods and others. Therefore, if it becomes liberation, then it will become non-existent like the sky. Such liberation is of no use. Alas! Yogis greatly value permanence. Or, from the perspective of ultimate truth, the self is not the basis of actions, enjoyments, etc., this is entirely due to the power of ignorance. Is it the same with attachment and so on? The answer to this is: How can the basis of experience, names, and all qualities be considered attachment? The nature of attachment is not like that. The self that transcends all names is the nature of the sky that depends on stones, wood, and cotton. Therefore, if someone is attached to it, it is not wanting to become like it, because that would not be the nature of attachment. Even if it changes, it clearly shows that it is not a preliminary distinction. Therefore, it is better to pursue samsara. If you ask: Because the happiness of samsara does not produce complete satisfaction. The answer is: The happiness of nirvana also cannot produce complete satisfaction. Because the pursuit of happiness is inevitable, all happiness should be abandoned. There is no action that does not pursue happiness. Therefore, even if all happiness exists perfectly, one still wants a more excellent happiness than that, and constantly pursues that happiness. Therefore, there is no mind here that does not pursue. The word "pursuit" is also a synonym for craving, which is a very great suffering. Therefore, all happiness does not produce complete satisfaction.
Chinese
是故，安乐无有少分能令永尽涅槃。如是，彼一切品类之安乐，皆转成贪欲之自性。是故，与贪欲相应者，由彼亲近安乐等之所作，则此乃安住于轮回者之自性。设若离贪亦非是见耶？虽未曾见，然彼乃是安乐之觉性。以何为因，为彼之义而勤作之精进，由厌倦之自性，思惟为痛苦者，乃是于他种相状显现欲求者，由显现趣向安乐之自性，能令显现离贪，然非是无我之执着。是故彼即说云：于一切相状中，我执能令于我之贪着坚固。彼乃是我所执着之种子，即是安住之境地。此处真实义乃是：如是串习之习气，如是即不能从我执中解脱。是故依于饶益，亦转成于我所之耽着。设若彼舍弃我执之自性，为断除过失之义而趣入，岂非如是耶？是故云何转成于我所之贪着等耶？曰：设若于此我执之自性，若无有，则为何义而遮止？若非是遮止之义而精进，则为作何事而趣入皆不转成。若于他转成痛苦之所依，则彼不欲彼之痛苦，并且于彼亦无有执着，如是之行相，是互相损害。设若作利他事，则彼欲求安乐耶？虽是他之所作，然以我执能作何事？设若我虽是刹那，然为觉知刹那之差别，乃是利他存在之自性，是故我执无有义利。以具有大势力之因，设若彼即能作，则于邪妄显现者，有何等之大势力？是故凡是我之自性，不欲成为痛苦者，真实上彼之我执，如是亦生起我所之执着。彼设若长久时，欲求安乐，非是具有我所执着，若未见长久之安乐，则于彼云何能转成欲求耶？设若转成百倍耶？
English
Therefore, there is no happiness that can completely transcend suffering and attain nirvana. Thus, all categories of happiness transform into the very nature of desire. Therefore, one who is associated with desire, through actions such as clinging to happiness, remains in the nature of a samsaric being. If detachment is not also a form of seeing, then when has it not been seen? However, it is the very awareness of happiness. Because the effort to strive for its sake, the very nature of weariness, thinking of it as suffering, is one who desires to manifest other aspects. By manifesting the nature of turning towards happiness, it can manifest detachment, but it is not without attachment to self. Therefore, it is said: In all aspects, self-grasping strengthens attachment to self. It is the seed of clinging to self, which is the very place of dwelling. Here, the true meaning is: As long as that habit of conditioning remains, one cannot be liberated from self-grasping. Therefore, relying on benefiting, one also becomes attached to what is mine. If one abandons the very nature of self-grasping and enters for the sake of eliminating faults, is it not so? Therefore, how does it transform into attachment to what is mine, and so on? It is said: If there is no self-grasping in this, then for what purpose is it prevented? If it is not striving for the sake of preventing, then entering to do something will not transform. If it transforms into a basis of suffering for others, then they do not desire that suffering, and there is no clinging to it. Such actions are mutually harmful. If one does things for the benefit of others, then do they desire happiness? Although it is the action of others, what can self-grasping do? Although self is momentary, it is the very nature of altruistic existence to know the distinction of the moment. Therefore, self-grasping has no meaning. Because it possesses great power, if it can do it itself, then what great power does one who falsely manifests have? Therefore, whoever does not want their own self to be suffering, in reality, their self-grasping, likewise, gives rise to clinging to what is mine. If one desires happiness for a long time and does not possess clinging to what is mine, if one has not seen happiness for a long time, then how can desire transform in them? If it transforms a hundredfold?
Tibetan
།མེད་པར་ཡང་ནི་འཇུག་འགྱུར་ཏེ། །བརྒྱ་ལ་མེད་པར་འགྱུར་བ་ཡིན། །སྤྲེའུ་ཟླ་བོ་སྟོར་བ་བཞིན།། རྣལ་འབྱོར་གནས་སྐབས་འགྱུར་ན་འདི། །ཇི་ལྟར་འགྱུར་བ་ཅི་ཆ་ཡོད། །དེ་ལྟར་ཕན་ཚུན་བརྟེན་པ་ན། །དེ་ལ་ཇི་ལྟར་འཇུག་པར་འགྱུར། །དེའི་ཕྱིར། བརྩོན་ཡང་ཡོན་ཏན་ཆ་བརྟེན་ནས། །འཇུག་ལྡན་བདག་གི་བ་ལ་ནི། །ཆགས་བྲལ་གགས་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་དང༌། །དེ་ཡི་སྐྱོན་ཡང་ སྒྲིབ་པ་ཡིན། །བདག་ཏུ་འཛིན་པ་གང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་གང་ཡིན་པ་དེ་ནི། བདག་ལ་ཉེ་བར་མཁོ་བའི་ཡོན་ཏན་གྱི་ཆ་འགའ་ཞིག་ལ་བརྟེན་ནས། དེ་ལ་མངོན་དུ་ཕྱོགས་པར་འགྱུར་བས་བདག་གི་བ་ལ་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་གགས་བྱེད་པ་ཉིད་དོ། །སྐྱོན་མཐོང་བ་དེ་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཡོན་ཏན་གྱི་ཆ་མཐོང་བ་དེས་སྐྱོན་མཐོང་བ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གེགས་བྱེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དེའི་ཕྱིར་བདག་ལ་ཆགས་པ་དང་མ་བྲལ་བའི་བདག་གི་བ་ལ་ཆགས་པ་དང་མི་འབྲལ་པ་ཉིད་དོ། །གལ་ཏེ་བདག་ལའང་ཆགས་བྲལ་ན། །ད་ནི་ཆགས་བྲལ་གང་ཡིན་མེད། །དེ་ནི་ཇི་ལྟར་བདག་འདོར་བ། །སྡུག་བསྔལ་བསྒོམས་པ་དོན་མེད་འགྱུར། །འདི་སྙམ་དུ་བདག་ནི་འདོར་བར་ནུས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ། དེ་ཉིད་ནི་དེ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་དོར་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །འདི་ལྟར། ཇི་ལྟར་ཡོད་པ་དེ་ལྟར་ནི། །མི་འདོར་མེད་དེ་ལྟར་ཡང་མིན། །དེས་ན་བདག་ནི་འདོར་མིན་ཏེ། །ཆགས་པ་འབའ་ཞིག་འདོར་བ་ཡིན། །དེས་ན་འདོད་ཆགས་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཉིད་ཡོངས་སུ་འདོར་བའི་ཕྱིར། རྟག་ཏུ་བདེ་བ་ཉིད་དོ་སྙམ་ན་འདི་ལ་སྨྲས་པ། བདེ་བར་གནས་པ་འདོད་པ་ཉིད། །ཀུན་འཛིན་མཚན་ཉིད་འདོད་ཆགས་ཡིན། །དེ་ཡང་ཡོད་ཕྱིར་ཆགས་ལྡན་ཉིད། །ཡིན་ཞེས་སྔར་ནི་བརྗོད་ཟིན་ཏོ། །གལ་ཏེ་བདག་ལ་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་ན་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བ་དེ་སུ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ད་ནི་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བ་དེ་ཉིད་མེད་དོ། །གཞན་ནི་གཞན་ལ་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བར་འགྱུར་བ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ཉིད་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བའི་རང་བཞིན་དུ་འགྱུར་བ་ལས་ཆགས་པ་དང་བྲལ་བར་འགྱུར་བ་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། འདིར་སྨྲས་པ། བདག་ལ་བདག་ཆགས་བྲལ་མིན་ཅིས། །ཅི་ལྟར་དེ་ཡོད་དེ་ལྟར་ནི། །ཆགས་བྲལ་མ་ཡིན་ཇི་ལྟར་དེ། །མེད་དེ་ཆགས་བྲལ་ལྟར་ཡང་མིན། །དེ་ནི་གཞན་དུ་འགྱུར་མིན་ལ། །གཞན་ཡང་དེ་ལྟར་གནས་མིན་ཏེ། །བདག་ཉིད་ཀུན་ནམ་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་གིས། །རྣམ་པ་ཀུན་ཏུ་འཐད་དཀའ་ཕྱིར། །གཅིག་ལ་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་ལ་ཐ་དད་མིན་མེད། །གང་ཞིག་ཕྱོགས་གཅིག་དེ་གཞན་འགྱུར། །དེ་ལྟ་ཡིན་ན་ཐུག་མེད་འགྱུར། །རྣམ་འགས་གཞན་མིན་འགྱུ
Chinese
沒有也轉為存在，百中轉為不存在。如猴子失去同伴一般。瑜伽士狀態轉變時，如何轉變有何把握？如此互相依賴時，如何對其產生作用？因此，即使勤奮也要依靠功德的部分，對於具有作用的我的東西，成為遠離貪著的障礙，那也是它的過失，也是遮蔽。所謂的執著於我，是指依靠對我來說接近需要的功德的一部分，對此顯現趨向，因此我的東西成為遠離貪著的障礙。如果說見到過失不是那樣，不是的，因為見到功德的部分，就以見到過失本身來障礙。因此，對於沒有遠離對我的貪著的我的東西，就是貪著且不分離。如果對我也遠離貪著，那麼現在就沒有遠離貪著的了。那如何捨棄我呢？修習痛苦就變得沒有意義。心想我不能捨棄，因為那本身不是由那本身捨棄的。如此，如何存在就如何不捨棄，不存在也不是那樣。因此我不是捨棄，只是捨棄貪著。因此，因為完全捨棄具有貪欲的本身，所以總是快樂，如果這樣想，就對此說，想要安樂的狀態，就是普皆執持的自性貪著。那也是存在的，所以是具有貪著的本身。以前已經說過了。如果對我遠離貪著，那麼遠離貪著的是誰呢？現在就沒有遠離貪著的了。其他不會對其他遠離貪著。那本身從轉變為遠離貪著的自性而遠離貪著嗎？對此說，我對我如何不遠離貪著？如何它存在就如何，不是遠離貪著，如何它，不存在也不是像遠離貪著一樣。那不會轉變為其他，其他也不會那樣存在，因為我本身全部或一部分，在一切方面都很難成立。一個沒有一部分，一部分沒有非他。任何一部分都轉變為其他，如果那樣就會變成無窮。以某些方式轉變為非他
English
It also changes to existence without being, and it changes to non-existence in a hundred. Like a monkey losing its companion. If the yogi's state changes, how does it change, what certainty is there? When they depend on each other like that, how does it act on it? Therefore, even if diligent, it must rely on the part of merit, and for my things that have function, it becomes an obstacle to being free from attachment, that is also its fault, and also obscures. What is called clinging to self is that which relies on a part of the qualities that are close to my needs, and therefore it manifests towards it, so my things become an obstacle to being free from attachment. If it is said that seeing faults is not like that, it is not, because seeing the part of merit, it hinders by seeing the fault itself. Therefore, for my things that have not abandoned attachment to me, it is attachment and inseparable. If even I am free from attachment, then now there is no one who is free from attachment. How can I abandon myself? Meditating on suffering becomes meaningless. Thinking that I cannot abandon myself, because that itself is not abandoned by that itself. Thus, how it exists is how it is not abandoned, and non-existence is not like that either. Therefore, I am not abandoning, but only abandoning attachment. Therefore, because of completely abandoning the very nature of having desire, it is always happiness, if you think so, then say to this, wanting to abide in happiness, is the nature of clinging to all desires. That also exists, so it is the very nature of having attachment. It has already been said before. If I am free from attachment, then who is free from attachment? Now there is no one who is free from attachment. Others will not be free from attachment to others. Does it itself become free from attachment by transforming into the nature of being free from attachment? To this it is said, how can I not be free from attachment to myself? How it exists is how it is, it is not free from attachment, how it is, it does not exist either like being free from attachment. That will not change to other, and other will not exist like that either, because I myself, all or part, is difficult to establish in all aspects. One does not have a part, and a part does not have non-other. Any part changes to other, if that is so it will become infinite. Changes to non-other in some ways