English
It is said that being born from a lotus is the meaning of lineage. Also, on the ultimate path, are the three empowerments conferred sequentially or all at once? If conferred sequentially, it is like a spark, it will become generated at one time. It is called the path of entering all at once. As it says in the Lamrim: "He departs with the instant of the final moment." This is the empowerment that is a condition for going to the state of Buddhahood, but the time of conferring it contradicts being described as an instant. If conferred all at once, it contradicts the three empowerments. If you ask this, neither contradicts. It is also possible to become a Buddha by sequentially conferring the two empowerments and finally obtaining the empowerment of indivisible great bliss. Or, before the instant of the final moment, one obtains the secret empowerment, and afterwards one obtains the two empowerments. It is also said that one attains enlightenment by obtaining the three empowerments at once. Then, is it contradictory to obtain the empowerment of the three empowerments in an instant? It is not contradictory, because the object to be empowered is the dawning of the beginning of omniscience, and the empowerer is the Sixth Dalai Lama. In general, in both sequential and simultaneous cases, the previous lamas say that simultaneous is reasonable in this case. Also, from "without birth," there are four kinds of reasoning that prove no-birth: because it does not arise from other causes and conditions, it is without birth; because it does not arise suddenly, it is without birth; because it is not done by another agent, it is without birth; because such a thing as birth is not established, it is without birth. The first example is a pot, which is the subject, is without birth. This is the proposition, the reason being that it is not born from other causes and conditions. If it is said that the reason for this is not established, then, is it born from causes and conditions? If it is born, is it born from itself or from another? If it is born from itself, is it born from an established self or an unestablished self? If it is born from an established self, it will become endless. Because it is born from an unestablished self. If you admit, then it is obvious that a pot does not arise from a pot. If you say it is born from an unestablished self, then, do you admit that it is produced or do you not admit that it is produced? If you say that because the cause is not established, the reason is not established, then abandon the proposition of birth. If you admit, then it is obvious that a result does not arise without a cause. Also, if you say it is born from another, then, is it born from a permanent other or from an impermanent other? If you say it is born from a permanent other, then, is that permanent established as a thing or established as a non-thing?
Chinese
乙，如果最终成立为无实有，则应成为无常，因为没有成立为实物。例如，像兔子的角一样。如果承认，则以承认常有而自明。又，如果成立为实物，那么实物的特征是能起作用还是不能起作用？如果不能起作用，则与瓶子、柱子等的情况能起作用相违背。如果能起作用，那么是次第起作用还是一起起作用？如果次第起作用，则应成为无常，因为是次第起作用。即使次第起作用也是常有，那又如何呢？如果说周遍没有成立，那么，导师的药材也应成为常有，因为是次第起作用也是常有。如果承认，则以无常是变化和具备变化而自明。如果一起起作用，那么对此有三种破斥：破斥外在的产生一起起作用，破斥内在的心一起起作用，破斥重复起作用。第一，在播种种子的时候，应立即生起绿色的苗芽，因为是一起起作用。如果承认，则以不产生为根识所明。第二，即使外在的产生不是那样，内在的心一起起作用，那么，应不能从小孩的智慧中生起成人的智慧，因为内在的心一起起作用。如果承认，则以明觉的增长产生为根识所明。第三，拉杰藏巴说，已经一起起作用完毕的，还起作用还是不起作用？如果起作用，则将变成次第起作用，因为说已经一起起作用完毕后又起作用。如果不起作用，则应成为无常，因为先前能起作用，后来不能起作用。对此，《释量论》中说：事物变为他物时，智者说为无常。又，如果说从无常中产生，因为无常的规律是刹那变化和具备变化，那么，刹那是有分还是没有成立分？如果有分，因为具备众多分，则应不是刹那，因为具备众多分。如果承认，则以承认刹那而自明。如果没有成立分，则刹那也应没有成立，因为没有分。如果承认，则以承认而自明。它从因缘中。
English
B. If, in the end, it is established as non-existent, then it should become impermanent, because it is not established as a real thing. For example, like a rabbit's horn. If you accept this, it is self-evident by admitting permanence. Furthermore, if it is established as a real thing, is the characteristic of a real thing the ability to function or not? If it cannot function, then it contradicts the fact that a pot, a pillar, etc., can function in their respective situations. If it can function, does it function gradually or all at once? If it functions gradually, then it should become impermanent, because it functions gradually. If it functions gradually but is still permanent, then what is it? If you say that the pervasion is not established, then the teacher's medicine should also become permanent, because it functions gradually and is also permanent. If you accept this, it is self-evident that impermanence involves change and is accompanied by change. If it functions all at once, then there are three refutations to this: refuting that external phenomena arise all at once, refuting that internal mind arises all at once, and refuting that it functions repeatedly. First, at the time of sowing seeds, a green sprout should immediately appear, because it functions all at once. If you accept this, it is self-evident that it does not arise, as is clear to the senses. Second, even if external phenomena are not like that, if the internal mind functions all at once, then the wisdom of an adult should not arise from the wisdom of a child, because the internal mind functions all at once. If you accept this, it is self-evident that the increase of clarity and awareness arises, as is clear to the senses. Third, Lhaje Tsangpa said, after something has functioned all at once, does it still function or not? If it functions, then it will become gradual functioning, because it is said that after functioning all at once, it functions again. If it does not function, then it should become impermanent, because it was previously able to function but later cannot function. Regarding this, in the Pramāṇavārttika it says: When things change into other things, the wise call it impermanent. Furthermore, if you say that it arises from impermanence, because the nature of impermanence is momentary change and being accompanied by change, then is that moment with parts or without established parts? If it has parts, then because it has many parts, it should not be a moment, because it has many parts. If you accept this, it is self-evident by admitting the moment. If parts are not established, then the moment should also not be established, because it has no parts. If you accept this, it is self-evident by admitting it. It is from causes and conditions.
Chinese
生已遮破。又，瓶子，法，是无生的，因为时间不是突然出现的。如果这样说，那么“因为时间不是突然出现的”这个理由不成立。时间是突然出现的吗？如果说是，那么是因为有因缘而时间突然出现的吗？还是没有因缘而时间突然出现的？如果是第一种情况，那么因缘是从自身还是他者产生的？这和之前的常法一样。如果是第二种情况，那么生的自性就不成立了。为什么呢？因为生起之因的自性不成立，他者生起之因的能力是空虚的。例如兔子的角一样。如果说“因为时间不是突然出现的”这个理由不成立，那么就推翻了没有因缘而产生的誓言。又，瓶子，法，是无生的，因为不是他者所作的。如果这样说，那么“不是他者所作的”这个理由不成立。如果是他者所作而产生的，那么作者是常还是无常？如果是常，那么就和之前驳斥常法一样。如果是无常，那么就和之前驳斥无常刹那一样。又有人说，不是从因缘产生的，也不是作者所作的，时间也不是突然出现的，那么这种连遍知者的手都无法遮破的事物，是什么遮破的呢？密宗的理路是，以大自在的理路，所要成立的是续部的成立，智慧是以如实之理安住的智慧来遮破的。瓶子，法，是无生的，因为不是像这种已生的事物。如果这样说，那么“不是像这种已生的事物”这个理由不成立。如果说是像这种事物成立，那么，作为法的瓶子，为什么是瓶子呢？如果说是由于腹部膨胀、底部收缩、颈部细长才是瓶子，那么一切容器都成了瓶子。如果说是被称为瓶子并且具有瓶子的作用，那么不被称为瓶子并且不具有瓶子的作用的是什么呢？如果说是脏物等等，那么为什么是脏物呢？如果说是由于重才是脏物，那么铅也成了脏物。如果说是由于硬才是脏物，那么铁也成了脏物。如果说是由于圆才是脏物，那么方形等等就不是脏物，并且一切圆形都成了脏物。如果说是一种蓝色，那么一切蓝色都成了脏物。又，如果说不是脏物的东西是脏物，那么就颠倒了。
English
Birth is refuted. Furthermore, the pot, the dharma, is unborn, because time did not suddenly arise. If it is stated like that, then if it is said that the reason of "because time did not suddenly arise" is not established, did time suddenly arise? If it is said that it did, did time suddenly arise because there was a cause and condition, or did time suddenly arise without a cause and condition? If it is according to the first case, then from where did the cause and condition arise, from self or other? It is the same as the previous permanent phenomenon. If it is according to the second case, then the nature of birth is not established. Why? Because the nature of the cause of arising is not established, and the power of the cause of arising from another is empty. For example, like a rabbit's horn. If it is said that the reason of "because time did not suddenly arise" is not established, then the vow of arising without cause and condition is refuted. Furthermore, the pot, the dharma, is unborn, because it was not made by another agent. If it is stated like that, then if it is said that the reason of "because it was not made by another agent" is not established, if it arose having been made by an agent, is the agent permanent or impermanent? If it is permanent, then it is the same as the previous refutation of permanence. If it is impermanent, then it is the same as the previous refutation of impermanent moments. Furthermore, someone says, it did not arise from cause and condition, nor was it made by an agent, and even though time did not suddenly arise, what refutes this thing that even the hand of the all-knowing cannot refute? The reasoning of the Secret Mantra tradition is that the reasoning of the great self, what is to be established is the establishment of the tantra, and wisdom refutes it with the wisdom that abides in the suchness of reality. The pot, the dharma, is unborn, because it is not established as such a born thing. If it is stated like that, then if it is said that the reason of "because it is not established as such a born thing" is not established, if it is said that it is established as such a thing, then, as a dharma, why is the pot a pot? If it is said that it is a pot because of its bulging belly, shrinking base, and thin neck, then all containers become pots. If it is said that it is called a pot and has the function of a pot, then what is it that is not called a pot and does not have the function of a pot? If it is said that it is filth and so on, then why is it filth? If it is said that it is filth because it is heavy, then lead also becomes filth. If it is said that it is because it is hard, then iron also becomes filth. If it is said that it is because it is round, then square shapes and so on are not filth, and all round things become filth. If it is one blue color, then all blue things become filth. Furthermore, if it is said that something that is not filth is filth, then it is reversed.