Chinese
不可能改变到有缘的证悟等，应如是说，直至舌头疲惫为止。再说，具有基础的阿赖耶识应成三种不同的实体。因为具有法的别解脱戒、菩萨戒、密乘戒三种的习气是不同实体的缘故。如果认为阿赖耶识是以前以后的心识之流，那么就应成不具足三者的意义。因为任何一个产生时，另一个就会灭亡的缘故。或者如果认为阿赖耶识具有三种戒律的习气，本体是一个，那么就应成舍戒和得戒的仪轨是一个。如果这样说，就承认了三种推论的三个方面，对别人也如此说这种过失。自己却承认阿赖耶识以三种戒律潜伏的方式存在，并且“阿赖耶识具有许多习气，但是心识之流没有差别”。如果本体是一个，那么舍戒和得戒的仪轨就应成一个，现在也有很多人这样说，所以应该对此进行研究。一般来说，本体是一个，有成立简易的实体是一个，和本体成立并且没有不同实体两种。对于前者，需要同时产生和毁灭，但是如果依次受持三种戒律，改变状态后，以一个本体存在，不是成立简易的实体是一个，所以没有过失。对于后者，不需要舍戒和得戒的仪轨是一个。如果需要，那么依次受持三种学处的比丘相续中的沙弥戒、沙弥尼戒和比丘戒的断除杀生的断心三种，应成舍戒和得戒的仪轨是一个。因为本体是一个的缘故。如果说它们也是不同的本体，那么像这样的比丘相续中的主要意识，在意识的随行中，不可能同时产生三种学处的断心。因为三种学处的断心是不同实体的，任何一个主要的心识的随行中，心所和心识两种不同的实体不可能同时产生的缘故。此外，所断的二百五十三种全部断除的断心，是不同实体还是一个实体？如果是前者，那么在一个主要的心识的随行中，同时断除二百五十三种
English
It is impossible to change to the realization of the conditioned, etc., and it should be said like this until the tongue is exhausted. Furthermore, the alaya consciousness with a basis should become three different entities. Because the habits of the three vows of the Dharma, the Pratimoksha vow, the Bodhisattva vow, and the Vajrayana vow, are different entities. If you think that the alaya consciousness is the stream of consciousness before and after, then it should become meaningless to have three. Because when one arises, the other will perish. Or if you think that the alaya consciousness has the habits of the three vows, and the essence is one, then the ritual of abandoning and receiving the vows should become one. If you say so, you have admitted the three aspects of the three inferences, and you also say this fault to others. You yourself admit that the alaya consciousness exists in a latent way with the three vows, and that "the alaya consciousness has many habits, but the stream of consciousness is not different." If the essence is one, then the ritual of abandoning and receiving the vows should become one. Many people still say this nowadays, so it should be studied. Generally speaking, there are two types of oneness: one is that the essence is one, and the entity that is easy to establish is one, and the other is that the essence is established and there are no different entities. For the former, it is necessary to produce and destroy at the same time, but if you take the three vows in sequence, and the state changes, and it exists as one essence, it is not an entity that is easy to establish, so there is no fault. For the latter, the ritual of abandoning and receiving the vows does not need to be one. If it is necessary, then the three minds of abandoning killing, which are the Pratimoksha vow, the Shramanera vow, and the Bhikshu vow in the continuum of a Bhikshu who has taken the three trainings in sequence, should become one ritual of abandoning and receiving the vows. Because the essence is one. If you say that they are also different entities, then in the continuum of such a Bhikshu, in the retinue of the main consciousness, it is impossible for the three minds of abandoning the trainings to arise at the same time. Because the three minds of abandoning the trainings are different entities, and it is impossible for two different entities, the mental factor and the consciousness, to arise at the same time in the retinue of any main consciousness. In addition, are the minds of abandoning all the two hundred and fifty-three objects to be abandoned different entities or one entity? If it is the former, then in the retinue of one main consciousness, abandoning two hundred and fifty-three at the same time