Chinese
据说，是弟子说的解释续。这样一来，八十品等也变成根本续，因为宣说续的开端与根本续的词义没有差别。而且，斯帕卡布认为根本续也是由讲解的人所说的，所以有损害。还有娘提克巴说：不依赖其他论典，能够产生其他意义的是根本续，续解释续的意义，这是解释续，这种说法不合理。如果按照第一种说法，那么逐渐进入的那些道次第的乘就不需要依赖其他的乘了，因为这本身就能够产生。不能这样认为，因为“各地的差别安排，是进入秘密藏的道路”这句话很清楚。如果按照第二种说法，那么这个根本续本身也会变成解释续，因为第十一章的“修行的日子”和第九章的“日子是三十六个”等解释了它。若克·德谢钦波说：最初出现并成为解释的基础的是根本续，后来出现并成为解释者的续的实物在其他地方成立的是解释续，这是很好的想法。就像奇妙尸林续中所说：最初所说是根本续，后来所说是解释续，简略地说的是根本，清楚地解释的是解释续。第三，辩论的提出和驳斥。第一，邬茹·华丹说：因为见解特别殊胜，大圆满是最好的。密咒的特点不是见解，有什么比中观更殊胜的呢？第二，所有的大乘都认为见解是离戏的吗？或者中观和密咒都认为见解是离戏的，所以是一样的吗？如果按照第一种说法，那么中观和唯识的见解也会变得没有差别，因为两者都被认为是显宗。如果这样认为，那么唯识不认为离戏就很清楚了。如果按照第二种说法，虽然在胜义离戏和世俗如幻方面一致，但这并不意味着密咒的见解已经确定，因为密咒的见解是认为二谛无别的自性，因此，世俗如幻的那些相
English
It is said that the disciple spoke the explanatory tantra. In this way, the eighty chapters and so on also become the root tantra, because there is no difference between the beginning of the tantra and the meaning of the root tantra. Moreover, Sparkhab considers that the root tantra itself is also spoken by the person who explains it, so there is harm. Also, Nyangtikpa says: The root tantra is that which can generate other meanings without relying on other treatises. The tantra explains the meaning of the tantra, which is the explanatory tantra. This statement is unreasonable. According to the first statement, then those gradual entry paths do not need to rely on other vehicles, because this itself can generate it. It cannot be considered this way, because the statement "The special arrangement of the lands is the path to enter the secret essence" is very clear. According to the second statement, then this root tantra itself will also become an explanatory tantra, because the eleventh chapter "The days of practice" and the ninth chapter "The days are thirty-six" etc. explain it. Rok Deshek Chenpo said: The root tantra is that which first appeared and became the basis of explanation. The explanatory tantra is the object of the tantra that appeared later and became the explainer, which is established elsewhere. This is a good idea. Just like what is said in the Wondrous Cemetery Tantra: What is said first is the root tantra, what is said later is the explanatory tantra, what is said briefly is the root, what is explained clearly is the explanatory tantra. Third, the presentation and refutation of arguments. First, Uru Paljin says: Because the view is particularly superior, Dzogchen is the best. The characteristic of mantra is not the view, what is more superior than Madhyamaka? Second, do all the Mahayana schools think that the view is free from elaboration? Or do both Madhyamaka and Mantra think that the view is free from elaboration, so they are the same? According to the first statement, then the views of Madhyamaka and Cittamātra will also become indistinguishable, because both are considered to be Sutrayana. If this is considered, then it is clear that Cittamātra does not consider freedom from elaboration. According to the second statement, although they agree on the ultimate freedom from elaboration and the conventional illusion, this does not mean that the view of mantra has been determined, because the view of mantra is to consider the nature of the two truths as inseparable, therefore, those characteristics of conventional illusion
Chinese
为了将一切事物视为完全清净的本尊之自性，因此，你们不应不接受密咒中高于中观的见解。例如，如果法性是佛，那么有法（指现象）就不可能是非佛，因为有法的本质就是法性。这是因为密宗承认轮回与涅槃无二的见解。对此，有人会说：密咒中显现为本尊的世俗谛，不是以胜义谛为目标的见解，因为它是以世俗谛为目标的修行。不接受世俗谛作为见解的目标，是因为将二谛视为好坏取舍是显宗的观点，而密宗承认二谛平等，不从二谛的混淆中分离出来的见解。认为修行是修行，见解不是见解等等，也不应执着于见解与修行的对立，因为确立见解后进行实修，是所有智者和成就者所共知的。如果像经中所说的那样，将蕴界等从一开始就理解为本尊的清净，这不是安住于实相的见解。即使不是这样，如果在那里妄加分别并进行修行，那就会变成分离的见解和修行，不会产生结果。就像把石头观想成黄金，无论怎么努力也不会变成黄金一样。因此，见解上的差异是成立的。正因为如此，也认识到证悟它的乘的次第也有差异。九乘次第各自显现出不同的见解，而所有乘的顶峰，最为殊胜的就是阿底瑜伽。因此，用“至高无上”这样不满意的词语来称呼它，只不过是胡说八道，毫无意义。对此，有些人说：这不合理。《金刚心要释》中说：“佛地第四，第五非能仁意。”因此，经中说没有第四乘和第五宗，所以乘一定是三种。如果这样说，那么《名称赞》和《金刚心要释》本身中说：“三乘之解脱，安住一乘之果。”分为四种也不合理，因为已经确定只有三种。对此，有人会说：分为三种是声闻、缘觉、菩萨的三乘，之后分为因果二者而说为四种，只是分类和总结的差别，没有过失。如果这样说，那
English
In order to view all things as the nature of completely pure deities, therefore, you should not reject the view in mantra that is superior to Madhyamaka. For example, if the Dharmata is Buddha, then phenomena cannot be non-Buddha, because the essence of phenomena is Dharmata. This is because mantra acknowledges the view of non-duality of samsara and nirvana. To that, someone might say: Those appearances as deities in the conventional truth of mantra are not a view that aims at the ultimate truth, because it is a practice that aims at the conventional truth. Not accepting the conventional truth as the object of view is because viewing the two truths as good and bad to be accepted or rejected is the system of the sutras, while mantra acknowledges the view of equality of the two truths, without separating from the confusion of the two truths. Holding practice as practice, view as not view, etc., is also not appropriate to hold view and practice as contradictory, because establishing the view and then meditating on the meaning of realization is known to all scholars and siddhas. If, as stated in the sutras, understanding the skandhas, elements, etc., as pure deities from the beginning is not a view of abiding in reality. Even if it is not so, if one fabricates there and practices, it will become separate view and practice, and no result will arise. Just like trying to meditate on a stone as gold, no matter how hard one tries, it will not turn into gold. Therefore, the difference in view is established. Precisely because it is established in this way, it is also recognized that there is a difference in the sequence of vehicles that realize it. Each of the nine vehicles manifests different views, and the pinnacle of all vehicles, the most supreme, is Atiyoga. Therefore, calling it "supreme" with dissatisfied words is just nonsense and meaningless. To that, some say: That is not reasonable. In the Vajra Heart Commentary, it says: "The fourth Buddha ground, the fifth is not the intention of the Able One." Therefore, since the sutras say that there is no fourth vehicle and fifth tenet, the vehicle must be only three. If you say so, then the Praise of Names and the Vajra Heart Commentary itself say: "The liberation of the three vehicles abides in the fruit of one vehicle." Dividing into four is also unreasonable, because it has been determined that there are only three. To that, someone might say: Dividing into three is the three vehicles of Shravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva, and after that, it is said to be four by dividing into cause and effect, it is just a difference of classification and summary, there is no fault. If you say so, then
Chinese
也同样适用于九次第。外内续部六者都包含在果乘中，而果乘也包含在佛乘中，因此这里也有分类和归纳的差别。如果说没有包含天人的乘，也没有过失。因为天人的乘是增上生的乘。金刚心髓释论中归纳为三乘，是指解脱乘。因此，你们执着于只有三乘，实在是迷惑于《楞伽经》中说乘不可思议等等的意义。此外，以外译的续部中没有出现阿努和阿底的法，作为理由来否定，这会变成不善者的赞歌。因为佛陀是根据所化众生来制定经文的高低，在下下之中，上上的法和广说不会出现，这是普遍规律。例如，在声闻的律藏中没有波罗蜜多乘，其中没有外密续，在这些之中，没有密集金刚等的法。因此，仅仅因为密集金刚等中没有出现阿努和阿底的法和广说，就成立了大圆满是所有乘的顶峰。到此为止。第二，关于论典。分为总的分类和具体这部续的释论的确定。第一，分为定义、词义、分类。第一是：主要是以著论的意乐发起，为了稳固自己意欲的宗派而汇集的任何经教。具备三个特点的是清净的论典，缺少其中任何一个特点的是相似的论典的定义。三个特点是：依靠佛陀的教言，作为其意义的解释；作者是由无散乱的心的人所说；作用是与获得解脱的道路相符。如《宝性论》中说：‘凡是依于佛陀的教法，由无散乱的心者所说，与获得解脱的道路相符，那也是贤者如教法一样顶戴。’第二是：从论典的词义来说，梵语Śāstra（梵文天城体：शास्त्र，梵文罗马拟音：śāstra，汉语字面意思：论典）中，Śāsana（梵文天城体：शासन，梵文罗马拟音：śāsana，汉语字面意思：教诫）是调伏，Trāya（梵文天城体：त्राय，梵文罗马拟音：trāya，汉语字面意思：救护）是救护的意思。
English
It also applies to the nine successive stages. The six outer and inner tantras are all included in the Fruition Vehicle, and that Fruition Vehicle is also included in the Buddha Vehicle, so there is also a difference in classification and inclusion here. If you say that the vehicle of gods and humans is not included, there is no fault. Because the vehicle of gods and humans is the vehicle of higher realms. The Vajra Heart Essence Commentary, which is condensed into three vehicles, refers to the Liberation Vehicle. Therefore, your clinging to only three vehicles is simply being ignorant of the meaning of the Lankavatara Sutra, which says that the vehicles are inconceivable. Furthermore, using the fact that the terms Anu and Ati do not appear in the externally translated tantras as a reason to deny them would turn into a praise from an unskilled person. Because the Victorious Ones establish the scriptures as superior or inferior depending on the disciples to be tamed, it is a general rule that the terms and extensive explanations of the higher ones do not appear in the lower ones. For example, the Paramita Vehicle does not appear in the Hearer's Pitaka, the outer tantras do not appear within it, and the terms of Guhyasamaja etc. do not appear in those. Therefore, the Great Perfection is established as the pinnacle of all vehicles simply because the terms and extensive explanations of Anu and Ati do not appear in Guhyasamaja etc. Enough with the elaboration! Second, regarding treatises: there are two aspects: the general presentation of the system and the identification of the commentaries on this particular tantra. The first has three parts: definition, meaning of the term, and classification. The first is: mainly motivated by the intention to compose a treatise, any scriptural teaching that is compiled to establish one's own desired tenet. Having three characteristics is the definition of a pure treatise, and lacking any of those three is the definition of a seemingly similar treatise. The three characteristics are: relying on the words of the Victorious Ones and serving as an explanation of their meaning; being spoken by an author with an undistracted mind; and the function being in accordance with the path to liberation. As it says in the Uttaratantra: 'Whatever is based solely on the teachings of the Victorious Ones, spoken by one with an undistracted mind, and in accordance with the path to liberation, that too is accepted by the wise as if it were the teaching itself.' Second: in terms of the meaning of the word Shastra, in Sanskrit Śāstra (梵文天城体：शास्त्र，梵文罗马拟音：śāstra，汉语字面意思：Treatise), Śāsana (梵文天城体：शासन，梵文罗马拟音：śāsana，汉语字面意思：teaching) means to subdue, and Trāya (梵文天城体：त्राय，梵文罗马拟音：trāya，汉语字面意思：protection) means to protect.