English
R. To explain the excellence of the proof of that, there are two parts: stating the wrong conception that there is no proof, and showing the proof by refuting the wrong conception. The first is: Tsaṁ. Some debaters say that it is not appropriate to say that the Bhagavan is a valid cognizer and has become (something), because if a person is a valid cognizer, he must know all hidden things, but since he does not have that, and since there is no means of proving that, and since there is no diligence in the means, they say. The second has three parts: refuting that there is no valid cognizer and proving that there is a valid cognizer, refuting that there is no proof and showing the proof, and refuting that there is no diligence and proving that there is diligence. The first has three parts: it is appropriate to seek a knowledgeable person who knows all the necessary things, it is reasonable to examine whether that person has knowledge of the meaning or not, and establishing the proof that knowledge of the meaning has become a valid cognizer. The first is: Miṁ. (Tibetan, Sanskrit Devanagari, Sanskrit Romanization, Chinese literal meaning) A person with discernment who seeks liberation is the subject. There is a reason to seek a knowledgeable person who has knowledge of the meaning that he himself desires, because one must be diligent in the meaning of his own desire that is shown by that knowledgeable person. The second is: Deṁ. (Tibetan, Sanskrit Devanagari, Sanskrit Romanization, Chinese literal meaning) That is the subject. It is reasonable to examine whether that friend has knowledge of that desired meaning or not, but it is not reasonable to examine whether he has knowledge of an undesired meaning, because one seeks a knowledgeable person in order to accomplish one's own desired meaning. The third is: Blaṁ. (Tibetan, Sanskrit Devanagari, Sanskrit Romanization, Chinese literal meaning) That is the subject. That person who understands the nature of the four truths without error is the valid person whom you should rely on, not just someone who sees things far away, because the former accomplishes your desired meaning, and if it were the latter, you would have to rely on vultures as well. The second has five parts: proving the proof of compassion with reason, how effort arises from that, how the Sugata arises from that, how the protector arises from that, and thus proving that there is proof. The first has three parts: the nature of the proof, its cause, and refuting objections to that. The first is: Sgrubṁ. (Tibetan, Sanskrit Devanagari, Sanskrit Romanization, Chinese literal meaning) The object to be proven, the valid person, is the subject. You have proof, because the compassion that equally desires all sentient beings to be free from suffering is your proof. The second is: Gomaṁsa. (Tibetan, Sanskrit Devanagari, Sanskrit Romanization, Chinese literal meaning) Compassion
Chinese
诶，具法者。您有理由，因为您在多生中串习了慈悲的所缘行相，所以您才出生。第三部分分二：遣除串习不可能转变的诤论，遣除即使存在也不是超出自性的。第一部分分二：提出诤论，讲述驳斥。第一部分是：勃隆（藏文：བློཾ།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：，汉语字面意思：）。断见者说：慈悲，具法者。您在多生中串习也不能成就大悲，因为有分别的意识真实依赖于身体，所以身体坏灭时意识流就断绝了。第二部分分二：总说，广说。第一部分是：芒（藏文：མཾ།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：，汉语字面意思：）。慈悲，具法者。以意识真实依赖于身体的理由，不能成立从串习中产生，因为依赖它是被理智阻碍的。如何呢？生（藏文：སྐྱེ།ཾ，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：，汉语字面意思：）。刚出生的呼吸等，具法者。不是在没有同类前行的情况下仅仅从身体产生，如果那样产生，那么石头等也应该有心识，这太过分了。并且，以今生的前念后念相连接的理由，您也成立了有同类前行。第二部分分二：广说太过分的理智，广说连接没有相违。第一部分分三：从四大之身产生太过分，从具根之身产生太过分，从常恒之身产生太过分。第一部分是：如果说没有太过分的过失，因为有些四大是心识等的种子，有些不是。那么，康（藏文：གངཾ་།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：，汉语字面意思：）。四大，具法者。你们全部都应该是心识等的种子。因为你们全部如果聚合其他因缘，就会产生温暖、湿润、化生等有情。承认周遍，因为刚出生的根等在没有同类前行的情况下产生，那么就必须从全部四大产生根等。第二部分分三：如果倒转就成立因果，遣除与教证相违，如果逐渐成立就相违承认。第一部分是：旺（藏文：དབཾང་།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：，汉语字面意思：）。如果认为身体是意识的真实所依，那么就必须认为具根的身体是意识的真实所依，如果那样，意识，具法者。您真实依赖于眼等根。
English
Hey, Dharma-possessor. You have a reason, because you have become accustomed to the object-aspects of compassion in many lives, so you are born. The third part has two: refuting the argument that habituation cannot change, and refuting that even if it exists, it is not beyond its own nature. The first part has two: presenting the argument, and explaining the refutation. The first part is: Bhlom (Tibetan: བློཾ།, Sanskrit Devanagari:, Sanskrit Romanized:, Chinese literal meaning:). The nihilist says: Compassion, Dharma-possessor. You cannot accomplish great compassion by becoming accustomed to it in many lives, because the conceptual consciousness actually relies on the body, so when the body is destroyed, the stream of consciousness is cut off. The second part has two: summary, and detailed explanation. The first part is: Mam (Tibetan: མཾ།, Sanskrit Devanagari:, Sanskrit Romanized:, Chinese literal meaning:). Compassion, Dharma-possessor. It is not the case that it cannot be established from habituation because the mind actually relies on the body, because relying on it is blocked by reason. How so? Born (Tibetan: སྐྱེ།ཾ, Sanskrit Devanagari:, Sanskrit Romanized:, Chinese literal meaning:). The breath and so on of a newborn, Dharma-possessor. It is not born from the body alone without a similar antecedent, if it were born that way, then stones and so on should also have consciousness, which is too far-fetched. And, by the reason that the previous and subsequent thoughts of this life are connected, you are also established as having a similar antecedent. The second part has two: explaining in detail the reason for being too far-fetched, and explaining in detail that the connection is not contradictory. The first part has three: if it is born from the body of the elements, it is too far-fetched, if it is born from the body with faculties, it is too far-fetched, if it is born from the permanent body, it is too far-fetched. The first part is: If you say that there is no fault of being too far-fetched, because some of the elements are the seeds of consciousness and so on, and some are not. Then, Kam (Tibetan: གངཾ་།, Sanskrit Devanagari:, Sanskrit Romanized:, Chinese literal meaning:). Elements, Dharma-possessor. All of you should be the seeds of consciousness and so on. Because if all of you gather other conditions, beings such as warmth, moisture, and birth will be produced. The pervasion is admitted, because if the faculties and so on of a newborn arise without a similar antecedent, then the faculties and so on must arise from all the elements. The second part has three: if it is reversed, the cause and effect are established, refuting the contradiction with the scriptures, and if it is gradually established, it contradicts the admission. The first part is: Vam (Tibetan: དབཾང་།, Sanskrit Devanagari:, Sanskrit Romanized:, Chinese literal meaning:). If you think that the body is the actual basis of consciousness, then you must think that the body with faculties is the actual basis of consciousness, if so, consciousness, Dharma-possessor. You actually rely on the faculties such as the eyes.
Tibetan
ན་པ་མིན་ཏེ། དེ་ལ་གནོད་པ་ཁྱོད་ལ་གནོད་པས་མ་ཁྱབ་པའི་ཕྱིར། དེ་ཆོས་ཅན། མིག་སོགས་དབང་པོ་ཁྱོད་ལ་བརྟེན་པ་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཁྱོད་གཞན་དུ་གྱུར་ན་དབང་པོ་གཞན་དུ་འགྱུར་བར་མཐོང་བའི་ཕྱིར་དང་། ཁྱོད་ལ་བརྟེན་པའི་ལས་ལས་དབང་པོ་ཕྱི་མ་འབྱུང་བའི་ཕྱིར། དེཾ། བདག་འཛིན་ཅན་འཆི་ཁ་ཐ་མའི་ཡིད་བློ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ལས་ཕྱི་མའི་དབང་སོགས་འབྱུང་སྟེ། ཁྱོད་ལས་དེ་འབྱུང་བའི་རྒྱུ་ཚོགས་ཚང་ཞིང་གེགས་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཉིས་པ་ནི། འོ་ན་ལུས་དང་སེམས་དག་ཕན་ཚུན་རྗེས་སུ་བྱེད་པ་ཅན་ཡིན་ནོ་ཞེས་གསུངས་པའི་ལུང་དང་འགལ་ལོ་ཞེ་ན། དེཾ། དེ་ལྟ་བུའི་ལུང་ཆོས་ཅན། ཡིད་བློ་ལུས་ལ་དངོས་སུ་བརྟེན་པ་དེ་ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ཞེན་དོན་མིན་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་ལ་ཡིད་བློ་བརྒྱུད་ནས་བརྟེན་པ་ལ་དགོངས་ནས་གསུངས་པའི་ཕྱིར། གསུམ་པ་ནི། གལཾ། དབང་པོ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ཡིད་བློའི་དངོས་རྟེན་ཡིན་ཏེ། ཁྱོད་མེད་པར་ཡིད་བློ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཞེ་ན། ཡིད་བློ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་དབང་པོའི་དངོས་རྟེན་དུ་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་མེད་པར་དབང་པོ་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར། འདོད་ན། དབང་པོ་དང་ཡིད་བློ་ཆོས་ཅན། ཤི་བའི་འོག་ཏུ་ཕན་ཚུན་འབྲས་བུ་ཡིན་པར་ཐལ། ཤི་ཁ་ཐ་མའི་ཚེ་ཕན་ཚུན་རྒྱུ་འབྲས་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གསུམ་པ་ནི། རིཾམ། ལུས་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ལས་ཡིད་བློ་རིམ་ཅན་དུ་སྐྱེ་བ་མིན་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། གལ་ཏེ་རྐྱེན་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ཡིད་བློ་རིམ་ཅན་དུ་བསྐྱེད་དོ་ཞེ་ན། ལུས་ཆོས་ཅན། རྐྱེན་ལ་ལྟོས་པ་མིན་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་རྟག་པ་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། ལུསཾ། གལ་ཏེ་བློ་རིམ་ཅན་ལ་ལྟོས་ནས་ལུས་ལས་ཡིད་བློ་རིམ་གྱིས་སྐྱེའོ་ཞེ་ན། དེའིཾ། ལུས་ཆོས་ཅན། ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ལུས་སེམས་སྐད་ཅིག་སྔ་མ་རེ་རེས་ཕྱི་མ་རེ་རེ་བསྐྱེད་པར་ཐལ། ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ལུས་སེམས་གཉིས་ཀ་སྔ་ཕྱིའི་རིམ་པ་ཅན་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། འདོད་ན། དེ་ཆོས་ཅན། འཆི་ཁ་ཐ་མའི་ཚེ་ན་ཡང་ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་ལུས་སེམས་སྔ་མ་ཕྱི་མའི་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་པར་ཐལ། འདོད་པ་གང་ཞིག རྒྱུ་མཚན་མཚུངས་པའི་ཕྱིར། གཉིས་པ་མཚམས་སྦྱོར་འགལ་བ་མེད་པ་རྒྱས་པར་བཤད་པ་ལ་གསུམ་སྟེ། འཆི་སེམས་ཡིན་པའི་རྟགས་མ་ངེས། །དེ་ཡི་མཐུན་དཔེ་ཆོས་ཀྱིས་སྟོང་། །མི་སྟོང་པ་ཡི་སྒྲུབ་བྱེད་དགག་པའོ། །དང་པོ་ནི། ཐཾ། རྒྱང་འཕེན་པ་ན་རེ། ཐ་མལ་པ་འཆི་ཁ་ཐ་མའི་སེམས་ཆོས་ཅན། རིག་པ་ཕྱི་མར་མཚམས་མི་སྦྱོར་ཏེ། འཆི་སེམས་ཡིན་པའི་ཕྱིར། དགྲ་བཅོམ་པའི་འཆི་སེམས་བཞིན་ནོ་ཞེ་ན། དེ་ཆོས་ཅན། དེ་སྒྲུབ་ཀྱི་གཏན་ཚིགས་ཡང་དག
Chinese
并非如此，因为对它的损害并不完全包含对你的损害。这个法，眼等感官依赖于你，因为如果改变你，感官也会改变，并且依赖于你的业会产生后续的感官。དེཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）具有我执的临终意识，从你那里会产生后续的感官等，因为从你那里产生它们的因缘具足且没有障碍。第二种情况是：如果说与“身体和心识是相互随顺的”的经文相违背，那么，དེཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）这样的经文，意识直接依赖于身体，这并非你所执着的对象，因为它是考虑到意识通过你而依赖身体而说的。第三种情况是：གལཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）感官，你是意识的直接所依，因为没有你，就没有意识。意识，你应该成为感官的直接所依，因为没有你，就没有感官。如果承认，那么感官和意识，在死亡之后应该是相互的结果，因为在临终时，它们是相互的因果。第三种情况是：རིཾམ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）身体，从你那里不会次第产生意识，因为你是常恒的。如果说依赖于因缘而次第产生意识，那么身体，不依赖于因缘，因为你是常恒的。ལུསཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）如果说依赖于次第的意识，身体会次第产生意识，那么，དེའིཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）身体，你的身体和心识的每一个前一刹那都会产生后一刹那，因为你的身体和心识两者都具有先后次第。如果承认，那么，这个法，即使在临终时，你的身体和心识的前一刹那也是后一刹那的因，因为所承认的，理由相同。第二，详细解释没有连接矛盾之处，有三种：死亡心识的标志不确定，它的同品例子空无自性，对不空无自性的论证进行驳斥。第一种情况是：ཐཾ。（种子字，梵文天城体，梵文罗马拟音，汉语字面意思）外道说：普通人的临终心识，不会与后续的知识相连接，因为是死亡心识。如同阿罗汉的死亡心识一样。这个法，这个论证的理由是真实的。
English
It is not so, because harm to it does not necessarily include harm to you. This phenomenon, the senses such as the eyes depend on you, because if you change, the senses are seen to change, and from the actions that depend on you, subsequent senses arise. དེཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) The mind of the dying person with self-grasping, from you, subsequent senses and so on arise, because the causes and conditions for them to arise from you are complete and without obstacles. Secondly, if it is said that it contradicts the scripture that says, "Body and mind follow each other," then, དེཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) such a scripture, the mind directly depending on the body is not what you are attached to, because it is said considering that the mind depends on the body through you. Thirdly, གལཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) senses, you are the direct basis of mind, because without you, there is no mind. Mind, you should be the direct basis of the senses, because without you, there are no senses. If you accept, then senses and mind, after death, should be mutual results, because at the time of death, they are mutual causes and results. Thirdly, རིཾམ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) body, from you, mind does not arise in sequence, because you are permanent. If it is said that mind arises in sequence depending on conditions, then body, does not depend on conditions, because you are permanent. ལུསཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) If it is said that depending on the sequential mind, mind arises sequentially from the body, then, དེའིཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) body, each previous moment of your body and mind produces each subsequent moment, because both your body and mind have a sequence of before and after. If you accept, then, this phenomenon, even at the time of death, the previous moment of your body and mind is the cause of the subsequent moment, because what is accepted has the same reason. Secondly, there are three parts to the detailed explanation of how there is no contradiction in the connection: the sign of being a dying mind is uncertain, its example is devoid of inherent existence, and the argument for not being devoid of inherent existence is refuted. The first case is: ཐཾ། (Seed syllable, Devanagari, Roman transliteration, Literal meaning) The outsider says: The mind of an ordinary person at the time of death does not connect with subsequent knowledge, because it is a dying mind, like the dying mind of an Arhat. This phenomenon, the reason for this argument is valid.