Chinese
因此，像未经过详细研究就被认可那样，区分这种界限非常重要。否则，瑜伽士在确立自己的道和果的体系时，必须依赖于普通人的智慧，这真是可笑。因此，这是一种确定究竟的方式。一般来说，伟大的车乘论师们应该理解前后相续的意旨要点是一致的。像这样深奥的道理，即使是那些天赋和后天修习都非常圆满的自在者们也很难证悟。像我这样浅薄的思辨者，即使思考一百年也很难把握其深奥的要点。因此，凭自己的力量来讲解怎么可能呢？然而，依靠荣 सोम巴（Rongzompa）和龙钦却吉嘉波（Longchen Rabjam）的善说等持明传承的教证，凭借稍微获得智慧的加持而说的。因此，对于那些安住在无垢清净之境的人们，以及对于那些精通深广之处的人们，将会非常信服。虽然说要广泛地讲解，但了解和体验深奥意义的人却非常稀少。如果存在比深奥更深奥、具有智慧之舌的人，请体验这深奥意义的至上之味吧！这是中间的偈颂。关于唯识宗的观点，后来的论师们说，这位堪布不承认与六识不同的阿赖耶识，一般来说，将意识的细微部分划分为几个部分，用阿赖耶识的名称来表示，这在一些伟大的中观派和密宗中也很常见。一般来说，这部论典中没有明确承认阿赖耶识的词句，所以即使按照自己的意愿来安立也可以。然而，如果认为显现是心，就必须承认执持习气的阿赖耶识，否则是不行的。因此，如果像《楞伽经》和《解深密经》等经中所说的那样，承认唯识宗的自相，就必须承认阿赖耶识。因为阿赖耶识就像唯识宗的宗义的精髓一样，如果它成立，那么末那识也存在，这没有矛盾，所以必须承认八识。而且，这部论典中也说：以两种方式概括大乘，简要地说就是这样。就像引用五法、三自性等的教证一样，是唯识宗的
English
Therefore, it is very important to distinguish this distinction, as it is accepted as being famous without having to conduct a detailed examination. Otherwise, it is ridiculous that when yogis establish their own systems of path and fruit, they must rely on the minds of ordinary people. Therefore, this is a way of determining the ultimate. In general, the great chariot masters should understand that the essential points of the intention of simultaneity and subsequence are the same. Such profound principles, even those who are masters of perfect innate and acquired qualities, find it difficult to realize. Like me, a small-minded speculator, even if I think for a hundred years, it is difficult to grasp the profound essence. Therefore, how could I be able to explain it by my own power? However, relying on the scriptural authorities of the vidyādhara lineage, such as the good sayings of Rongzompa and Longchen Chökyi Gyalpo, I have spoken through the power of having gained a little access to wisdom. Therefore, those who are equally placed in the stainless and correct ultimate, and those who have completed their studies in the profound and vast places, will become very confident. Although there are many who say that they will explain extensively, those who know and experience the profound meaning are very rare. If there is someone with a tongue of wisdom that is more profound than the profound, please taste this supreme taste of the profound meaning! This is an intermediate verse. Regarding the view of Cittamātra, later commentators said that this abbot does not accept the ālaya-vijñāna that is different from the six consciousnesses. In general, some of the subtle parts of the mind-consciousness are divided into several parts and indicated by the name of ālaya-vijñāna, which is also common in some great Madhyamikas and in the Mantrayana side. In general, there are no clear words in this treatise that acknowledge the ālaya-vijñāna, so it is permissible to establish it in accordance with one's own wishes for the time being. However, if one believes that appearances are mind, one must necessarily accept an ālaya-vijñāna that holds the latent impressions, otherwise it will not work. Therefore, if one accepts a Cittamātra characteristic as it is taught in the teachings of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra and the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, one must necessarily accept the ālaya-vijñāna. Because the ālaya-vijñāna is like the essence of the Cittamātra tenet, and if it is established, then there is no contradiction in the existence of the klista-manas, so one must accept the eight consciousnesses. Moreover, in this treatise it is also said: The summary of the Mahāyāna, which is summarized in two ways, is as follows. Just as the scriptural authorities of the five dharmas and the three natures are cited, it is Cittamātra.
Chinese
那么，为什么不承认唯识宗的阿赖耶识呢？我认为是承认的。那么，在微细的意念中，咒语等所说的阿赖耶识是什么呢？所谓与六识不同，又是什么呢？对此，即使将意念分开，如果作为能依和所依，具有能执持习气的识，具备如前所说的阿赖耶识的特征，那么，即使将意念变得微细，其意义也没有超出阿赖耶识，只是名称而已。如果它不具备阿赖耶识的特征，就像将马称为牛一样，只是名称而已，没有任何必要。所谓与六识不同，是指本体不同，还是指反体不同？如果是前者，是指相续不同，还是指作用等不同？如果说是与六识相续不同的识，那么，不仅是中观派，也没有任何一个唯识宗的人会这样认为，因为如果诸识仅仅在识的本体上相续不同，那么，一个人就会有两个识的相续。如果作用等没有不同，那么在那里安立它有什么用呢？因为没有必要。如果仅仅从名言上考虑反体，那么，没有阿赖耶识就可以了。因为所谓与六识不同，这个声音没有决断，所以说它没有任何意义。如果仅仅在反体上也没有安立为与六识不同，那么，应该将什么称为阿赖耶识呢？因为阿赖耶识和六识，即使在安立的名言上也没有不同。仅仅是为了陈述考察的门径，请如实地进行思考。对此，我们认为这位堪布也承认八识。如果没有实际的棍棒等的损害，那么就不会认为会产生理性的损害。这样，为了需要安立八识转依的五种智慧等，这个宗义对于大乘总的宗义来说是非常庄严的，因为仅仅在名言上，对于烦恼意，以及没有限定在各个别自证识中的识，仅仅是明觉的本体，以及存在一个执持无始以来习气的心，不仅没有相违，而且以理成立必须存在。然而，它不是在遍计所执的基，他起自性的本体上成立为真实的，所以应该像月称论师等所遮破的那样理解，自证和一切
English
Then, why don't you accept the ālaya-vijñāna of the Yogācāra school? I think it is accepted. Then, what is this that is referred to as the ālaya-vijñāna in mantras, etc., in the subtle mind? What is this that is said to be different from the six consciousnesses? In that regard, even if the mind is divided, if the consciousness that can hold the seeds in the manner of a support and what is supported has the characteristics of the ālaya-vijñāna as described above, then even if the mind is made subtle, the meaning does not go beyond the ālaya-vijñāna, so it is just a name. If it does not have the characteristics of the ālaya-vijñāna, then just as a horse is called an ox, it is just a name, so there is no need for it. Also, what does it mean to be different from the six consciousnesses? Is it the essence or the opposite? If it is the former, does it mean a different continuum or different functions, etc.? If it is said to be a consciousness with a different continuum from the six consciousnesses, then not only the Madhyamikas, but no Mind-Only proponent would accept such a thing, because if the consciousnesses are not the same continuum only in the essence of consciousness, then one person would have two consciousness continuums. If there are no different functions, etc., then what is the use of establishing it there? Because there is no need. If you think of the opposite only in terms of designation, then it is enough to do without the ālaya-vijñāna. Because the sound of being different from the six consciousnesses has no distinction, it becomes impossible to say it. If it is not established as different from the six consciousnesses even in terms of the opposite, then what should be called the ālaya-vijñāna? Because the ālaya-vijñāna and the six consciousnesses are not different even in the designation of establishment. Just to state the gate of investigation, please think honestly. In that regard, we think that this abbot also accepts the eight consciousnesses. If there is no actual harm from sticks, etc., then it is not thought that harm from reason will arise. In this way, in order to need to establish the five wisdoms of the transformation of the eight consciousnesses, etc., this system is very beautiful for the general system of the Mahāyāna, because only in designation, for the afflicted mind, and the consciousness that is not limited to each individual self-awareness, only the essence of clear awareness, and the mind that holds the seeds of beginningless time, not only is there no contradiction, but it is established by reason that it must exist. However, it is not established as true in the nature of other-dependence, which is the basis of imputation, so it should be understood as refuted by Candrakīrti, etc., self-awareness and all
Chinese
这种破除基的理路，适用于一切唯识宗认为自证真实成立的情况。要知道，对于仅仅在名言上承认阿赖耶识和自证的宗派，在任何情况下都不适用。例如，破除蕴、界、处以及道和果一切真实成立的理路，并不妨碍中观宗仅仅在名言上承认蕴、界的安立和道果。外道所说的常实之我等，要知道，即使在名言中也不可能成立。总之，如果在名言的量面前成立存在，那么在名言中谁也无法否认它；如果名言的量有所损害，那么谁也无法证明它在名言中存在；如果胜义的量证明它不存在，那么谁也无法证明它在胜义中存在，这是诸法的法性。如此区分，对于大乘显密总体而言至关重要。因此，不仅在显宗中，而且在密宗中，一切显现都被确定为自显现，并且它也是心性大乐。总之，本论阐述了成为大乘显密一切宗义根本的关键。如佛所说，一切大乘都可归纳为五法、三自性等，一切大乘行者都如此认为。然而，如何修持此道的途径，唯有这位论师开创了车轨，因此本论极其重要。虽然在名言中承认事物存在，并且以自续因的方式运用论证，从而彰显了名相者的胜义，并以此来阐释宗义，因此被认为是自续派的论师。但不应认为其见解低于应成派，因为如此开创了双运的总体大乘道轨，从而使意义上的二谛双运与不住的法界要点相契合，因此没有任何差别。因此，圣者月称的密意是，一切显现当下自性清净，名言的虚假痕迹消融于法界之中的甚深见解，与大圆满法中确定本来清净的方式相同，因此实际上是持明传承的自宗，因此卑劣如我者也唯有如此。
English
This reasoning for refuting the base applies to all Mind-Only schools that assert self-awareness as truly established. It should be understood that it does not apply in any way to schools that only nominally acknowledge the ālaya-vijñāna and self-awareness. For example, the reasoning that refutes the true establishment of all aggregates, elements, sense bases, paths, and fruits does not harm the Madhyamikas' acceptance of the arrangement of aggregates and elements, and paths and fruits, as mere nominalities. It should be understood that things like the permanent, substantial self asserted by non-Buddhists are impossible even nominally. In short, if something is proven to exist in the face of nominal valid cognition, then no one can deny it nominally. If there is harm from nominal valid cognition, then no one can prove that it exists nominally. And if something is proven to be non-existent by ultimate valid cognition, then no one can prove that it exists ultimately—this is the nature of things. Such differentiation is crucial for the general Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras. Therefore, not only in the sūtras but also in the tantras, all appearances are determined to be self-appearances, and that is also the very nature of mind, great bliss. In short, this text shows the key that is the root of the views of all Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras. As the Victorious Ones said that all Mahāyāna is included in the five dharmas, three natures, and so on, all Mahāyānists think that way. However, the path of how to practice that is the tradition opened by this very teacher, so this text is extremely important. Although he asserts that things exist nominally and has the acceptance of applying reasoning as his own system, thus highlighting the ultimate of the nominalist, and he straightens the texts with that, so he is counted as a teacher of the Svātantrika, one should not think that his view is inferior to the Prāsaṅgika, because having opened the general Mahāyāna system of joining the two ways, there is no difference because the union of the two truths in meaning is in accordance with the key point of the non-abiding sphere. Therefore, the intention of glorious Candrakīrti is that all these appearances are directly pure in their own place, so the profound view of the disappearance of the false traces of nominality into the sphere is the same as the way of determining primordial purity from the Dzogchen texts, so in reality it is made as the self-system of the awareness-holder lineage, so even the inferior me is only that.