English
Having completely abandoned all faults, with the immeasurable bliss of possessing two purities, contemplating the image of the Buddha, to whom do you say this is "same basis"? Therefore, if the realm of sentient beings possesses the qualities of the Buddha, then those who say, "The ashes of the same basis are there," should understand it in this way. You also say, "Because suchness is without difference." Thus, are you throwing ashes at the two statements that the Buddha attains nirvana by removing temporary defilements, and that sentient beings are naturally in nirvana? The wisdom with defilements and the wisdom without defilements have already explained the difference between purity and impurity. This is because the Consequentialist does not understand the meaning of the Realist's statement that sentient beings are naturally in nirvana, just like saying, "If sentient beings attain nirvana, then samsara is conventional truth, then the Buddha also becomes samsara, what is the use of practicing bodhi?" It is like making such an accusation. Also, some flames of speculation say: If it is believed that the wisdom of omniscient wisdom is unconditioned and permanent, then it is unreasonable to know the momentary sequence of conditioned dharmas, because permanent dharmas have no sequence. In response to this, it is explained: The Buddha himself is the permanent pure nature with the body of unconditioned wisdom, etc. There are many such statements in the Nirvana Sutra, etc., but because there are too many words, they are not quoted here. Although there are many scriptures on how the Buddha himself knows the knowable, to summarize, it is said in the Bodhisattva Pitaka: 'All dharmas are equal in equality, the self-born realizes accordingly, therefore, manifest perfect enlightenment, the Thus-gone-one sees equally.' And in the *Entering the Middle Way* it says: 'Just as the sky is not divided by the difference of containers, so there is no difference in that nature, therefore, having realized suchness as of one taste, the Sugata's wisdom, in one instant, fully realizes all dharmas.' As it is said, all the defilements of grasping and being grasped are exhausted, abiding in the wisdom of complete transformation, being of equal taste with all knowable dharmas, in the state of being free from arising and ceasing, seeing the two selflessnesses of reality, and without before or after, completely knowing all dharmas without mixing. Because the former has no sequence, the latter is also seen simultaneously, that is, there is no sequence of before and after.
Chinese
例如，就像一面镜子中显现各种影像一样，智慧被视为远离了造作与非造作等戏论的边际，被称为自生大智慧。因为佛陀本身的功德是不可思议的，所以像那种能见到现象之境的刹那意识，不会安立在佛陀身上。如经中所说：“如何先前一样，后来也一样，是不变的法性。”因此，与原始法界无别的智慧被认为是无为法。如果在基础位时本来没有，而是通过道新产生的智慧，那必然是有为法。这样一来，就不是自生智慧，而且因为是刹那生灭、不稳定的，所以会变成欺骗。因此，与“在胜义谛中不欺骗的，皈依处唯有佛陀”之说相违背。此处，不住涅槃、正灭以及胜义谛，因为意义相同，所以对它产生有或无等概念，是戏论的束缚，是证见如来法身的障碍。如《中观根本慧论》中说：“若人于佛超越戏，于无尽者起戏论，彼为戏论所损害，不能得见于如来。”又说：“若涅槃为实有，涅槃即应是有为，实有非是有为性，无有少法而是实。”因此，首先要了知空性的意义，不是心和心所造作的虚假之物，并且要知道其自性本寂，并非与一切法之自性相异，这样才能了知涅槃。如经中说：“若人不了知空性，彼亦不能知涅槃，是故当以坏灭性，了知空性有及无。”因此，“有为非实有，无有少法而是实”这样反过来说，难道不是一样的吗？还有一些自诩为智者的人说：就像世俗谛生灭，但其自性胜义谛不灭一样，智慧生灭，但其体性法界也不会变成有为法。如果这样认为，那么佛陀的教授基础仅仅是法界是不合理的，这一点在前面已经说过。
English
For example, just as various images appear in a mirror, wisdom is regarded as being free from the extremes of elaboration such as fabrication and non-fabrication, and is called the great self-born wisdom. Because the qualities of the Buddha himself are inconceivable, such momentary consciousness that knows the realm of phenomena is not attributed to the Buddha. As it is said in the scriptures, "As it was before, so it is afterwards, it is the unchanging nature of reality." Therefore, wisdom that is inseparable from the primordial realm is considered to be unconditioned. If wisdom is newly produced by the path and did not exist from the beginning, then it must be conditioned. In that case, it is not self-born wisdom, and because it is momentary, perishable, and unstable, it becomes deceptive. Therefore, it contradicts the statement, "In the ultimate truth, the refuge that does not deceive is only the Buddha." Here, non-abiding nirvana, true cessation, and the ultimate truth are of the same meaning, so conceiving of them as having existence or non-existence is a bondage of elaboration, an obstacle to seeing the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata. As it is said in the Root Wisdom Treatise: "Those who elaborate on the Buddha who is beyond elaboration, and who elaborate on the inexhaustible, all those who are harmed by elaboration will not see the Tathagata." It also says: "If nirvana were real, nirvana would be conditioned. Reality is not conditioned, and there is nothing that is real." Therefore, first, one must understand that the meaning of emptiness is not something fabricated by the mind, and that its nature is inherently peaceful, not different from the nature of all phenomena. Thus, one understands nirvana. As it is said in the scripture: "Those who do not understand emptiness do not understand nirvana. Therefore, understand emptiness through destruction, both existence and non-existence." Therefore, if we reverse it and say, "Conditioned things are not real, and there is nothing that is real," would it not be the same? Furthermore, some who claim to be wise say: Just as the conventional truth arises and ceases, but its nature, the ultimate truth, does not perish, so too, wisdom arises and ceases, but its essence, the Dharmadhatu, does not become conditioned. If one thinks this way, then it is unreasonable to say that the basis of the Buddha's teachings is solely the Dharmadhatu, as has been explained above.
Chinese
啊！认为具有息灭一切戏论的无二智慧，不应以世俗显现的瓶子的存在现象为例。我们认为心的生灭之自性，是不变的无为智慧，因此称佛陀具有无为智慧之身。又，圣者们是为了以无为来区分而说的，这说了什么意义呢？说的是它的本体是真性空。仅仅是真性空遍及一切处，为什么不说一切所知都是以无为来区分的呢？不是的。如果说是由于现证了无为，那么，证悟它的无二智慧，自生无为，就成立为圣者的区分之法了。如果仅仅是证悟了无为的空性，就安立为圣者，那么，看见天空也会变成圣者了。因此，应当认为证悟了各自自证智慧与法界平等一味，是圣者的区分之法。又有些人说：“于知之一刹那。”等等所说，智慧刹那成为有为法成立了吗？那是指在其他的刹那顷刻间了知的意义。如果不是那样，在第一个刹那了知一切所知后，后面的刹那们了知什么呢？如果认为是刹那的相续了知，那是不对的。因为成了已经证悟的证悟之理，也就是成了不是圆满一切智了。此外，如果认为圆满一切智是有为无常，那么，“凡是无常的都是痛苦的。”这样说是相违的。有人说：不相违，因为清净刹土和地道等虽然是有为，但不是痛苦，因此有为就一定是痛苦是不周遍的，这样随意说。不成立，在《宝积经》中说：极乐世界没有三种痛苦中的前两种，但有周遍的行苦，因为有无常。以及在广大庄严的报身刹土中，他化自在天等不可思议的一切都是有为无常的。圣者的后得不违背苦谛，以及不清净地七地以下被小乘所怖畏，清净三地以下有智障所怖畏等等。
English
Ah! It is not appropriate to take the example of the appearance of a vase in ordinary perception to those who possess non-dual wisdom that pacifies all elaborations. We believe that the nature of the arising and ceasing of the mind is unchanging, unconditioned wisdom, therefore, the Buddha is said to have a body of unconditioned wisdom. Furthermore, what is the meaning of saying that noble beings are distinguished by the unconditioned? It is said that its essence is emptiness of inherent existence. Since mere emptiness of inherent existence pervades all objects, why is it not said that all knowable things are distinguished by the unconditioned? It is not so. If it is said that it is because the unconditioned is directly realized, then the non-dual wisdom that realizes it, the self-arisen unconditioned, is established as the distinguishing dharma of the noble ones. If merely realizing the emptiness of the unconditioned establishes one as a noble being, then seeing the sky would also make one a noble being. Therefore, it should be considered that realizing the equality of one's own self-aware wisdom with the dharmadhatu is the distinguishing dharma of the noble ones. Furthermore, some say, "In a single instant of knowing," etc., does this mean that the momentary wisdom is established as conditioned? That refers to the meaning of knowing in a momentary instant of another. If it were not so, after knowing all knowable things in the first instant, what would the subsequent instants know? If it is thought that the continuum of instants knows, that is not correct. Because it becomes the knowledge of what has already been realized, that is, it becomes not fully omniscient. Furthermore, if it is thought that omniscience is conditioned and impermanent, then it is contradictory to say, "Whatever is impermanent is suffering." Someone says: It is not contradictory, because pure lands and bhumis, etc., are conditioned, but not suffering, therefore, it is not universally true that whatever is conditioned is suffering, thus speaking carelessly. It is not established, in the *Ratnakuta Sutra* it is said: In Sukhavati, the first two of the three sufferings are absent, but there is pervasive suffering of conditioning because there is impermanence. And in the great and splendid Sambhogakaya realms, all the inconceivable things such as the realms of the great Ishvara are said to be conditioned and impermanent. The subsequent attainment of the noble ones does not contradict the truth of suffering, and those below the seven impure bhumis are frightened by the Lesser Vehicle, and those below the three pure bhumis are frightened by the obscurations of knowledge, etc.
Chinese
因为属于痛苦。本来，以殊胜乘修习心智者，若执着于共同道，认为此为真，其他则非，在思辨者中，辩论甚深意义的精要之语等是不应理的，因为没有成为法器，反而会在无意义之上产生过失。如《金刚心庄严续》中说：“于喧嚣中秘密之法，与未圆满有情，及金刚之语起争论，持咒者失坏誓言故，当勤勉恒常不为之。”因为与此所说之理相同。如此之甚深究竟精要，不能被凡夫的言语概念如实确定。如《经义解》中说：“各自自证无量行境者，不可言说且名言皆断绝，远离争论是胜义法，其乃超离思辨之境。”因为如此宣说。其理由是，圣者从第一地开始，便获得各自自证，即自生之智慧，因此能见证周遍法界之义。如果以随念的理智不能如实证悟，那么遮止戏论的宗法不成理吗？以思辨的随念虽然不能如实证悟自性，但因为能遣除显现的粗大增益，所以宗法并非无意义，因为言语概念之心是遣除他者的缘故。如《中观心要》中说：“由此随念之境，虽不成其为彼性，然彼性之知识，能遣除相违品。”如是说。此金刚之甚深处，若有任何人皆易于证悟者，经中说，除了佛陀之外，十地菩萨亦不能如实见，何况其余凡夫和声缘者？昔日印度，法称论师等曾广说慈氏法等其他法类。此《宝性论》仅对少数最优秀的弟子以口耳传承的方式秘密传授，一时认为此论的法器难得，故将经卷埋藏为伏藏。后来，据说自在者弥勒巴从一座佛塔的孔隙中见到发光，寻找后发现此论，从而使之弘扬开来。拉嫫