English
Indeed. When is the distinction inverted? At that time, what is the basis of similarity? The absence of mind is not the self, because the absence of mind is like a vase, etc. However, because of having mind, knowing would lead to the destruction of not knowing. If the self is immutable, what does the mind do to it? Thus, being without knowledge and action, the sky would be considered as the self. If the self is not existent, then the connection of cause and effect is not reasonable, because once the action is done, it disappears, then whose action would it become? The basis of action and result are different, and even without an agent there, it is established in both cause and result, so isn't there no point in arguing here? This view of having a cause and a result is not possible. Relying on a single continuum, one is shown to be the agent and the experiencer. The past and future minds are not the self, because they do not exist. However, if the mind that arises now is the self, then when it ceases, there is no self either. For example, water and trees, if divided into parts, there is nothing there. Likewise, by analyzing, if one tries to find it, the self is not truly existent either. If sentient beings do not exist, then to whom should compassion be directed? That which is assumed for the sake of the result, what kind of delusion is that speculation? Without sentient beings, whose is the result? It is true, but it is desired from delusion. For the sake of pacifying suffering, one should not prevent the delusion of the result. The pride that is the cause of suffering will increase due to delusion about the self. If it cannot be prevented from that, then meditating on selflessness is the best. The body is not the feet and shins, nor are the thighs and waist the body. The belly and back are not the body, nor are the chest and shoulders the body. The ribs and arms are not the body, nor are the armpits and shoulders the body. The internal organs, etc., are not the body, nor are the head and neck the body, so what exactly is the body? If this body is entirely composed of parts, then the parts would depend on the parts, but on what does it itself depend? If the body, which is the self of all, depends on the hands, etc., then as many hands, etc., as there are, there would be that many bodies. If there is no body inside and outside, then how can the hands, etc., have a body? If there is nothing other than the hands, etc., then how can it exist? Therefore, there is no body, and on the hands, etc., due to delusion, one thinks there is a body.
Chinese
转变。以形状安排的差别，如陶器随人意。如是因缘聚合时，身体显现如男子。同样如是手等存在时，彼在彼时身体显现。同样因是手指的集合，手又成为什么呢？那也是关节的集合之故，关节也分析为自己的部分。部分也分析为微尘，微尘也以方分的差别。方分也因与部分分离，如虚空般，因此微尘也不存在。如是如梦般的色身，有智慧者谁会执着？何时如是身体不存在，彼时何者为男何者为女？痛苦若存在于彼处，为何不损害极喜？若乐，为何不喜悦悲伤等，美味等？若以具力者压制，若彼非体验，何者非体验之自性？彼时感觉如何存在？痛苦仅有微小，此之粗大未消除吗？那是仅次于彼之喜悦，若然，微小之彼也是彼之。若生起违逆之缘，若未生起痛苦，则于感觉之觉悟是现观之执着。如是说不是成立了吗？因此彼之对治品，修习此观察，从分别田地所生之，禅定瑜伽士之食。若根境之间有间隔，彼等将于何处相遇？若无间隔，则为一体，何者与何者相遇？微尘不入微尘，那是无间隙的相同。未进入则无混合，未混合则无相遇。于无分者，相遇之说，如何能成立？相遇与无分者，若见请指示。于无色之识，相遇是不合理的。集合也因无事物，如前之分别。如是若无触，感觉将从何而生？此劳累为何目的？何者对何者造成损害？何时无有感觉者，感觉也不存在，彼时若见此状态，为何贪欲不退转？见或触，以如梦如幻之自性，心
English
transforms. Due to the difference in arrangement of shapes, like pottery according to human intention. As long as the assembly of conditions exists, the body appears like a man. Similarly, as long as hands and so on exist, the body appears there as long as they are present. Likewise, since it is an assembly of fingers, what does the hand become? That is also because it is an assembly of joints, and the joints are also divided into their own parts. The parts are also divided into particles, and the particles are also distinguished by directional divisions. Since the directional divisions are separate from the parts, like space, therefore the particles also do not exist. Like that, who with wisdom would be attached to a dream-like form? When the body does not exist like that, then who is male and who is female? If suffering exists in that place, why does it not harm extreme joy? If there is pleasure, why not enjoy sorrow and so on, flavors and so on? If suppressed by the powerful, if that is not experience, what is not the nature of experience? How does feeling exist at that time? Suffering is only subtle, has this grossness not been eliminated? That is only joy next to that, if so, the subtle one is also that. If an opposing condition arises, if suffering does not arise, then the realization of feeling is manifest attachment. Is it not established to be said like that? Therefore, the antidotes to this, cultivate this investigation, the food of the meditative yogi, which arises from the field of discrimination. If there is an interval between the sense faculty and the object, where will they meet? If there is no interval, then it is one, what will meet with what? Particles do not enter particles, that is seamless sameness. Without entering, there is no mixing, without mixing, there is no meeting. For that which is without parts, how can the saying of meeting be established? Meeting and that which is without parts, if seen, please show. For the formless consciousness, meeting is not reasonable. Assembly is also because there is no thing, like the previous analysis. Thus, if there is no touch, from what will feeling arise? What is this effort for? What causes harm to what? When there is no feeler, and feeling also does not exist, if one sees this state, why does craving not turn back? Seeing or touching, with the nature of dream-like illusion, mind
Chinese
因与俱生故，识不能见觉。由先生后生，能忆而未觉。自亦未自觉，他亦不能觉。亦无少许觉，故彼非是觉。如是无我众，于此有何害？意不住诸根，非色等非中。内非心外非，余处亦非有。非身非余处，不杂不各异，是则少许无，故有情寂灭。若先于所知，有能知生者，彼复依何生？若知与所知，同时而生者，彼复依何生？若谓所知后，乃有能知生，尔时知何生？如是诸法生，毕竟不可得。若如是世俗，皆悉非有者，于彼二谛云何有？若谓世俗由他成，有情云何得寂灭？此是他心分别念，非是自之世俗谛。后时以彼彼是有，否则世俗即为无。能思及所思，二互相依故。如依世俗说，一切分别事。若时分别者，以分别而观，尔时此分别，复为分别故，则为无穷尽。所观若已观，能观则无依，无依故不生，彼亦说寂灭。随谁此二谛，是实极难住。若由识根成，识有何所依？若由所知成，所知有何依？若谓互相成，二者亦当无。若无有子故，则无有父者，于彼子何生？若无有子故，则无有父者，如是二俱无。如芽生于种，如是知由种。由所知生识，何不觉彼有？如识异于芽，能觉种是有，何不觉所知
English
Because it arises simultaneously, consciousness does not see feeling. Because it arises before and after, it can remember but not experience. It does not experience itself, nor is it experienced by others. There is not even a little feeling, therefore it is not feeling itself. Thus, in this selfless assembly, what harm is done to it? The mind does not dwell in the senses, nor in forms, etc., nor in between. It is not the mind within, nor without, nor is it found elsewhere. It is not the body, nor elsewhere, not mixed, nor separate, therefore it is nothing at all, hence sentient beings are by nature in peace. If knowledge exists before the object of knowledge, then on what does it rely to arise? If knowledge and the object of knowledge are together, then on what does it rely to arise? But if the object of knowledge exists later, then from what does knowledge arise at that time? Thus, the arising of all phenomena cannot be understood. If in this way conventional truth does not exist, how can there be two truths? If conventional truth is by another, how can sentient beings have peace? This is another's mind's conceptual thought, it is not one's own conventional truth. Later, because of that, it exists, otherwise conventional truth is indeed non-existent. Thinking and what is to be thought about, the two are mutually dependent. Just as relying on what is known, all discriminations are spoken. When the discriminator, with discrimination, examines, then that discrimination, again for discrimination, would be endless. If what is to be examined has been examined, then the examiner has no basis. Because there is no basis, it does not arise, and that is also said to be peace. According to whom these two truths are, that is extremely difficult to abide in. If accomplishment is from the power of consciousness, what reliance does the existence of consciousness have? But if knowledge is accomplished from the object of knowledge, what reliance does the existence of the object of knowledge have? If it is said to be by mutual power, both will also become non-existent. If there is no father without a son, from what is the son born? If there is no father without a son, likewise both are non-existent. As a sprout arises from a seed, so knowledge is understood by the seed. Since knowledge arises from the object of knowledge, why is its existence not realized? If knowledge, other than the sprout, realizes that the seed exists, why is the object of knowledge not realized?
English
RA. From what is it understood that there is consciousness? For a moment, through the direct perception of the world, all causes are seen. Differentiating lotus stems, etc., the cause is produced by differentiation. If asked by what the continuum of differences is made, it is from the differences of the previous cause. Why can a cause produce an effect? Because the previous cause has power. If Ishvara is the cause of beings, for a moment, say what Ishvara is. If you say the elements, that's fine, but what's the use of just a name? However, earth, etc., are many, impermanent, moving, non-divine realms, are to be subdued, and are impure, so that is not Ishvara. Ishvara is not space, because it is moving, not self, because it has already been negated. For a non-thinking agent, what can be done with non-thinking words? What does he want to produce? Is the nature of the self, him, earth, etc., and Ishvara not permanent? Consciousness arises from the knowable, and beginningless happiness and suffering arise from karma. Therefore, say what is produced. If the cause has no beginning, where is the beginning of the effect? Why doesn't it always act, because it does not depend on others. If it is not done by him, and there is no other, then what will it depend on? If it depends, then it is an aggregate, it is a cause and not Ishvara. If it is an aggregate, it has no power to produce, and without it, there is no power to produce. If Ishvara acts without wanting to, then it becomes the slave of another. If he wants, then he depends on desire. If he acts, how is he Ishvara? Those who say that atoms are permanent, those have already been refuted. The Samkhyas believe that the permanent principle is the cause of beings. The qualities of mind, dust, and darkness, which exist together, are called "principle," inequality is said to be beings. One has three natures, it is not of the same kind, therefore it does not exist. Likewise, qualities do not exist, because they each have three forms. If there are no qualities, the existence of sound, etc., becomes very distant. For inanimate clothes, etc., there can be no happiness, etc. If things are the nature of its cause, haven't things already been analyzed? Your cause is also happiness, etc., and from that, cloth, etc., will not arise. From cloth, etc., happiness, etc., arise.