Chinese
是唯一，超越了对它们的执着之外没有其他的智慧，这就是非异体的唯一性。关于“确定”，也有三种：确定为基础是指智慧的基础是安乐的滋味，因为它依赖于明点。确定为道是指它是具缘者所应修持的，而生起该道的智慧是胜义谛，因此佛陀的意趣确定为果。遣除诤论也有四种：通过考察是否缺少梵文来遣除，通过考察名称、续部是否符合意义来遣除，通过考察三种名称来遣除，以及通过考察上根者如何依靠名称来领悟续部意义的方式来遣除诤论。第一种又分为两种：提出诤论和遣除诤论。第一种是，有些人认为《秘密藏》这部法典，不是从印度翻译过来的，因为它没有梵文，就像在藏地创作的论著一样。第二种也分为两种：驳斥他人的回答和建立自己的回答。第一种是，有些人说，因为直接说了藏语，所以梵语是隐含成立的，例如，确定为蓝色地域时，就隐含地确定了知识是执持蓝色的，但我觉得不是这样，即使确定了，也不能成立续是从印度翻译过来的。如果成立的话，那么所有在藏地创作的论著，都会变成是从印度翻译过来的，因为那些论著的声音也可以隐含地与梵语联系起来。这个理由已经被量成立，并且已经承诺了周遍性，不能否认。第二种也分为两种：用反证来驳斥能立，以及用自续的理由来成立是从印度翻译过来的。第一种是，即使这部典籍的开头没有梵文，又有什么妨碍它不是从印度翻译过来的呢？因为没有周遍性。他们说：凡是没有梵文的，就一定不是从印度翻译过来的，就像藏地的论著一样。如果是这样，那么《胜乐根本续》、《涅槃经》、《入胎经》等等，也会变成不是从印度翻译过来的，因为没有梵文。如果那些理由的根据成立，并且没有周遍性，那么誓言就破了，不能否认。因此，对于没有梵文的
English
is the only one, and there is no other wisdom beyond attachment to them, which is the non-dual oneness. Regarding "certainty," there are also three: certainty as the basis means that the basis of wisdom is the taste of bliss, because it relies on bindu. Certainty as the path means that it is to be practiced by fortunate individuals, and the wisdom that generates that path is the ultimate truth, therefore the Buddha's intention is certain as the result. There are also four ways to dispel disputes: by examining whether Sanskrit is lacking, by examining whether the name and tantra conform to the meaning, by examining the three names, and by examining how superior faculties rely on the name to understand the meaning of the tantra. The first is divided into two: raising the dispute and dispelling it. The first is that some people think that this Dharma text, the *Guhyagarbha Tantra*, was not translated from India, because it does not have Sanskrit, just like treatises composed in Tibet. The second is also divided into two: refuting others' answers and establishing one's own answer. The first is that some people say that because Tibetan is spoken directly, Sanskrit is implicitly established, for example, when it is determined to be a blue area, it is implicitly determined that knowledge is holding blue, but I don't think so, even if it is determined, it cannot be established that the tantra was translated from India. If it were established, then all the treatises composed in Tibet would become translated from India, because the sounds of those treatises can also be implicitly linked to Sanskrit. This reason has been established by valid cognition, and the pervasiveness has been promised, and cannot be denied. The second is also divided into two: refuting the proof by reductio ad absurdum, and establishing that it was translated from India by the reason of self-nature. The first is, even if there is no Sanskrit at the beginning of this scripture, what prevents it from not being translated from India? Because there is no pervasiveness. They say: Whatever does not have Sanskrit is certainly not translated from India, just like Tibetan treatises. If so, then the *Chakrasamvara Root Tantra*, the *Nirvana Sutra*, the *Gahavo Entering the Womb Sutra*, etc., would also become not translated from India, because there is no Sanskrit. If the basis of those reasons is established and there is no pervasiveness, then the vow is broken and cannot be denied. Therefore, for those without Sanskrit,
Chinese
从印度翻译过来并非没有错误。即使有，也不一定都是从印度翻译过来的，因为有些在西藏创作的也有梵文。第二，论证是，这部大续，作为所立宗，是从印度翻译过来的，因为这部续的第七品和第十六品的文本都是梵文，并且广为人知，或者印度的班智达们也多次解释过。这个理由通过经论量成立。文本是梵文，并且在印度被解释，这也通过量成立，即它来自印度。第二个辩论是，有些人问这个标题是否是续的意义。如果按照后者，那么上等根器的人依靠标题也无法理解续的意义，因为它不是续的意义，理解需要是续的意义。如果按照前者，那么上面已经提出了续的意义，因此不需要进行第二次讨论。如果需要讨论，那么续的体系就会混乱，顺序也会颠倒。有些人说，在印度梵文版本中，位于章节和结尾的标题是由译师放在开头的，因此它不是续的意义，所以也不需要讨论，这是不对的。正如经部中所说：“对上等者显示标题”，以及《量释论》中所说：“因此，为了上等者的意义，续的标题也在这里说了三个”，这将会产生矛盾。因此，标题是续的意义，所以没有第一个过失。通过讨论，第二品是有意义的，顺序我认为是能表文字续的权力。对于所表，在标题之前，更不用说讨论的基础也无法成立。这（指）上师所说的，放在开头的标题不是续的意义，而实际上安住于意义的标题，即解释道、果、果三个，才是续的意义，我认为这也是不合理的。因为续的意义是否是二者具有相违的法，因此声音和意义之间没有解释。第三个辩论是，这部续有三个标题，为什么不提续和教证的标题，而只提口诀的标题呢？一般来说，续的续，续的教证，
English
It is not without errors that it was translated from India. Even if there are, it is not necessarily all translated from India, because some of those composed in Tibet also have Sanskrit. Secondly, the proof is that this great tantra, as the subject to be established, was translated from India, because the texts of the seventh and sixteenth chapters of this tantra are in Sanskrit, and are widely known, or have been explained many times by Indian pandits. This reason is established by scriptural authority. The text is in Sanskrit and is explained in India, which is also established by authority, that it comes from India. The second debate is that some people ask whether this title is the meaning of the tantra or not. If according to the latter, then people of superior faculties will not be able to understand the meaning of the tantra based on the title, because it is not the meaning of the tantra, and understanding requires it to be the meaning of the tantra. If according to the former, then the meaning of the tantra has already been raised above, so there is no need for a second discussion. If discussion is needed, then the system of the tantra will be chaotic and the order will be reversed. Some people say that in the Indian Sanskrit version, the title located at the chapter breaks and the end was placed at the beginning by the translator, so it is not the meaning of the tantra, so there is no need to discuss it, which is not correct. As it is said in the root text, "Show the title to the superior," and in the Pramanavarttika, "Therefore, for the sake of the superior, the title of the tantra is also said here as three," this will be contradictory. Therefore, the title is the meaning of the tantra, so there is no first fault. Through discussion, the second chapter is meaningful, and the order I think is the power of the signifying letter tantra. For the signified, before the title, let alone the basis of discussion cannot be established. This (refers to) what the lama said, the title placed at the beginning is not the meaning of the tantra, but the title that actually abides in the meaning, that is, the explanation of the three paths, fruits, and results, is the meaning of the tantra, I think this is also unreasonable. Because whether the meaning of the tantra is or is not, the two have contradictory dharmas, so there is no explanation between sound and meaning. The third debate is that this tantra has three titles, why not mention the titles of the tantra and agama, but only mention the title of the upadesha? In general, the tantra of the tantra, the agama of the tantra,
Chinese
确定为三种密诀。特别是，将心和智慧显示为自显现，这是因为深奥的意义最为重要，所以是密诀，因此才提到了它的名称。最后的争论是，对于根器 श्रेष्ठ的人，仅仅指示密续的名称就能理解密续的意义，那么，即使名称中没有包含密续的意义也能理解，还是包含后才能理解？如果像第一种情况那样，那就太过分了，那样的话，怎么能阻止眼识听到声音呢？眼识，法相，不是听到声音，因为声音不是眼睛的对境。这样说之后，对方说，根器 श्रेष्ठ的人不是依靠名称来理解密续的意义，因为名称中没有包含密续的意义。因此，密续的意义是包含在名称中才能理解的。那么，包含的方式是怎样的呢？说是通过口头传承来传达，不是包含词语。从密续的开头到结尾，所要表达的除了基础、道路、结果这三者之外，没有其他的。而在这里，名称中也完整地显示了这三者。就像这样，第一个名称“秘密”也有三种，其中自性的秘密，结果最为重要，是隐藏的四种。隐藏有两种，自性密续中隐藏的是基础，文字密续中隐藏的是道路。心髓也有三种，原因的心髓是基础，精华聚集是道路，结果的结果是结果。实相也有三种，未造作的是基础，未错误的是道路，非他的是结果。同样，确定也有三种，在基础上确定是基础，在道路上确定是道路，在自性上确定是结果。这样说也稍微有些损害，那是怎样的呢？因为词语也没有与基础、道路、结果这三者相遇，因为仅仅没有包含词语。因此，如果这是依靠胜者和持明者的证悟方式，那就容易了。但是，个人没有那样的证悟方式。其他的经文中说：不依靠词语，无法证悟圣者的意义。此外，仅仅名称和基础、道路、结果这三者也存在于词语的自性中，因此是自相矛盾的。那么，应该怎样呢？仅仅指示名称就能理解密续的意义，这似乎是大多数先前出现的眷属的证悟方式。也就是说，讲经者将密续的意义
English
It is determined as three secret instructions. In particular, showing mind and wisdom as self-manifestation, this is because the profound meaning is most important, so it is a secret instruction, therefore its name is mentioned. The final argument is, for those with superior faculties, merely indicating the name of the tantra allows them to understand the meaning of the tantra, then, even if the name does not contain the meaning of the tantra, can they understand it, or do they understand it after it is contained? If it is like the first case, then it is too extreme, how could one prevent eye consciousness from hearing sound to that extent? Eye consciousness, the object of dharma, is not hearing sound, because sound is not the object of the eye. After saying this, the opponent says, those with superior faculties do not understand the meaning of the tantra by relying on the name, because the name does not contain the meaning of the tantra. Therefore, the meaning of the tantra is understood after being contained in the name. Then, how is it contained? It is said that it is transmitted through oral transmission, not containing words. From the beginning to the end of the tantra, what is to be expressed does not show more than the three: the ground, the path, and the result. And here, the name also shows these three completely. Like this, the first name "secret" also has three, among which the secret of nature, the result is the most important, and it is the four hidden ones. There are two hidden ones, in the nature tantra what is hidden is the ground, and in the letter tantra what is hidden is the path. The heart essence also has three, the heart essence of the cause is the ground, the gathering of essence is the path, and the result of the result is the result. Reality also has three, the uncreated is the ground, the unerring is the path, and the non-other is the result. Similarly, certainty also has three, certainty on the ground is the ground, certainty on the path is the path, and certainty on the essence is the result. Saying this is also slightly harmful, how is that? Because words also do not meet with the three: the ground, the path, and the result, because it merely does not contain words. Therefore, if this relies on the way of realization of the victors and vidyadharas, then it is easy. However, individuals do not have such a way of realization. Other scriptures say: Without relying on words, one cannot realize the meaning of the holy ones. Furthermore, merely the name and the three: the ground, the path, and the result, also exist in the nature of words, therefore it is self-contradictory. Then, how should it be? Merely indicating the name allows one to understand the meaning of the tantra, this seems to be the way of realization of most of the previously arisen retinues. That is to say, the expounder takes the meaning of the tantra into their heart.