English
Attaining mastery over the manifestation of non-duality is the yoga of the effortless result. So, are the three yogas taught here and the statement in the Condensed Meaning of the Sutras, "Action is the basis, activity is the condition, the absence of action is the yoga of the result," of the same or different intent? Yungton Chenpo said, "When considering the commonalities of the stages of the path, they are considered the same. However, the latter two yogas appear to have different views from this one. For example, it says, 'That vehicle which leads to effortful practice is the condition of action.' It speaks of the three vehicles that lead to all origins as the yoga of the condition of action. Furthermore, 'The result is effortless, the path abides in what is to be accomplished, this great method is without action.' It also speaks of the three outer vehicles of asceticism and knowledge, and the three inner vehicles of empowerment methods as the yoga of the effortless result. So, should we explain it in accordance with that here as well? No, because the latter yoga says in the Commentary on the Eye, 'The ultimate yoga, having already arisen in the continuum of no action, does not change, it is the lineage of the result.' Therefore, the implication of 'lineage' here can also be transformed into three lineages: the essence that does not change into something else and is not interrupted is the mother lineage; generating the five minds, arising in the continuum of the nature of reality, and not abandoning its opposing side is the lineage of effort; having already arisen in the continuum, therefore there is no action of the path of effort is the lineage of the result. The fourth is, as it says in the Three Stages, 'The Dharma with basis, path, and result.' Therefore, what is realized is the continuum of the basis, what realizes and traverses is the continuum of the path, and where it is ultimately perfected is the continuum of the result, which is also explained as the three: basis, path, and result. Even so, if those twelve categories within the four divisions are distinct in essence, then it contradicts what is said in the Heart Drop, 'In one there is also the essence of three.' And if there is no distinction of opposition and it is the same, then it contradicts being divided separately. If it is considered that the essence is the same but the differences are distinct, there is no fault. As it says in the Stages of the Path, 'Thus, wisdom abides in itself, the path and the result are all the essence.' Therefore, the essence is the self-aware bodhicitta.
Chinese
如何说是统一的呢？因为其象征方式的对立面，显现为基、道、果三者的差别。第二，归纳：一切所知的法都归纳为基、道、果三者。因为之前分为四种分类，那些只是名称的类别，本质上并没有成立为不同的。例如，就像对同一个人赋予许多名称一样。第三，确定归纳的意义，分为：总的确定基、道、果三者，是略说；分别确定它们，是广说。第一部分包括：分类、本质、词义、定义四方面。第一部分又包括：分类的依据、分类的法、分类的必要、确定者的量，这几个方面。第一是：从中进行区分的依据是不可或缺的，因为没有分类的依据，分类的类别就不会不同。大多数智者都一致认为，仅仅是所知作为分类的依据是合理的。如是说，《眼疏》中说：基道果的所知等，因为意义一致，词义是所知，归纳为三种传承的意义。如果说不合理，因为与经、理、诀窍三者相违背。与经相违背，如《意集经》中说：无论是比喻、量、因，还是推理的智慧，都不能理解，就像盲人测量天空的高度一样。与诀窍相违背，如《道次第》中说：为了遣除对名称的执着，在第二种名言中，是超越思虑言说的。理证也有妨害，如果仅仅以所知作为分类的依据，那么实相自性的基也成了所知，因为它是分类依据的周遍对象。这是不能接受的，因为它超出了所知的范围。如《金刚经》中说：法界不是所知，因此无法完全了知。以及《格波》中说：胜义不是意识的行境。如果这样说，回答说：有些人说，虽然实相不是所知，但确定和否定是所知的范围，所以没有过失。但确定之物本身就是实相，所以这种说法不合理。智者们啊！实相自性的基成为所知没有过失，因为《意集经》的那个经文的意思是，不能用思辨的理证来理解，而是指普遍的三种因
English
How is it said to be unified? Because the opposite of its symbolic representation appears as the difference between the three: basis, path, and result. Second, the summarization: all knowable phenomena are summarized into the three: basis, path, and result. Because the previous division into four categories, those are merely categories of names, and their essence has not been established as different. For example, just as one person is given many names. Third, establishing the meaning of the summarization: generally establishing the three, basis, path, and result, is a brief explanation; separately establishing them is an extensive explanation. The first part includes: classification, essence, meaning of the word, and definition. The first part also includes: the basis of classification, the object of classification, the necessity of classification, and contemplating the valid means of ascertainment. The first is: the basis from which to differentiate is indispensable, because without the basis of classification, the categories of classification would not be dissimilar. Most scholars agree that merely the knowable is suitable as the basis of classification. As it is said, in the Commentary on the Eye: The knowables of basis, path, and result, because the meaning is consistent, the meaning of the word is knowable, are summarized into the meaning of the three lineages. If it is said to be unreasonable, because it contradicts the three: scripture, reason, and pith instructions. It contradicts scripture, as it is said in the Condensed Meaning: Whether it is an example, a valid cognition, a reason, or the wisdom of inference, it is not capable of understanding, like a blind person measuring the height of the sky. It contradicts pith instructions, as it is said in the Stages of the Path: In order to dispel attachment to names, in the second conventional expression, it is beyond thought and expression. Reason also harms it, if merely the knowable is taken as the basis of classification, then the basis of the reality of the essence itself also becomes knowable, because it is the pervaded object of the basis of classification. This cannot be accepted, because it is beyond the scope of the knowable. As it is said in the Diamond Cutter: The realm of phenomena is not knowable, therefore it cannot be completely known. And in Galpo it is said: Ultimate truth is not the object of the mind. If you say that, the answer is: Some say that although reality is not knowable, determination and negation are within the scope of the knowable, so there is no fault. But the object of determination itself is that reality, so this statement is unreasonable. Scholars! There is no fault in the basis of the reality of the essence becoming knowable, because the meaning of that scripture in the Condensed Meaning is that it cannot be understood by speculative reasoning, but refers to the three universal reasons.
Chinese
虽然不是指不理解，而是指诀窍与实相无有差别，不是指确定之方式。然而，如果说对于所知是否能断定为有实和无实两种，仅此而言，秘密幻化部的所有道是否包含于见和禅定之中？如果包含，那么这里也能断定。如果说实相落入有实和无实的极端，那么道也只能用见和禅定中的任何一个来表示。如果又说不包含，那么这里也无法断定。那么，衡量所知的量会中断吗？所知会变成第三个蕴吗？如果这样说，就与所说的所有道都包含于见和禅定之中相矛盾，也会抬高头说，道的主要部分也会变成第三个。因此，即使所有道都包含于见和禅定之中，就像道仅仅普遍存在一样，即使所有所知都能断定为有实和无实两种，实相的基础普遍存在也是应该确定的，如理智所说。即使如此，我也是认为，实相的本体虽然超越了所知和能知，但仅仅在名言上作为可衡量之物并不矛盾，例如虚空虽然超越了心识的对境，但就像人可以测量它一样。在《父子相会经》中说：“可知的事物也仅限于世俗谛和胜义谛两种。”《噶拉波》中说：“从所知之中最为殊胜，因此是确定的词语。”虽然很多时候都说胜义是所知，但这与之前的经文并不矛盾，关键就在于此。总之，将基、道、果分为三个，也像梦境中的因果各自显现一样，暂时只是因为错觉，在全盘考虑的影响下各自显现而已，并非是法的本体所区分，因为本体在自证的菩提心中是一体的。然而，如果名言的智慧将本体的区分基础仅仅作为所知，那么实相落入所知之中也没有过失，因为这里区分的基础本身就是实相，因此它是理解的根本，因为《义聚》中说：内外有多少差别，一切法
English
While it doesn't refer to not understanding, it refers to the fact that the pith instructions and reality are without difference, not to the manner of ascertainment. However, if one says whether or not one can determine the knowable into two categories, existent and non-existent, in that case alone, are all the paths of the Secret Illusion school included in view and samadhi? If they are included, then here too it can be determined. If it is said that reality falls into the extreme of existent and non-existent, then the path can also only be represented by either view or samadhi. If one says again that they are not included, then here too it cannot be determined. Then, would the measure for determining the knowable be interrupted? Would the knowable become a third skandha? If one says so, it contradicts the statement that all paths are included in view and samadhi, and one would also raise one's head and say that a third principal part of the path would also exist. Therefore, even though all paths are included in view and samadhi, just as the path merely exists universally, even though all knowables can be determined into two categories, existent and non-existent, the basis of reality existing universally is what should be ascertained, as reason states. Even so, I believe that although the essence of reality transcends the knowable and the knower, it is not contradictory to make it measurable merely in terms of convention, just as the sky, although it transcends the object of mental cognition, can be measured by a person. In the Sutra of the Meeting of Father and Son, it says, "The knowable is also exhausted in the two truths, conventional and ultimate." In the Kalapa, it says, "From among the knowables, it is the most sacred, therefore it is a definitive word." Although there are many instances where ultimate truth is spoken of as the knowable, the key to not contradicting the previous scriptures lies in this. In short, dividing the ground, path, and result into three is also like the causes and results in a dream appearing separately. For the time being, it is merely appearing separately under the influence of illusory appearances and complete imputation, but it is not divided by the nature of the Dharma itself, because the essence is one in the self-aware mind of enlightenment. However, if conventional wisdom takes the basis of division in essence as merely the knowable, there is no fault in reality falling into the knowable, because here the basis of division itself is reality, therefore it is the root of the meaning of understanding, because in the Compendium of Meanings it says: All phenomena, however many differences there are, internal and external,
Chinese
一切皆为菩提心，如其本性而存在，是应知的续部之义。因此，即使胜义非为心之行境，但在辨别二谛之时，重要的是：仅于所知之显现上，二谛之田亦可成立。如是，此处亦与将所知说为分类之基础相同。第二，分类之基础仅为所知，分类之法决定为基、道、果三者，不多不少。第三，由于依赖于该基础本身，生起对果位之色身与智慧之渴望，因此有必要忍受道之艰难而进入，犹如芥子中本自具有酥油，故欲求酥油者不顾碾磨之辛劳而进入。第四，如是，分类之门确定且包含于基、道、果三者之中，此由量式所知，抑或由非量式所知？由量式所知，否则将耗尽于增益之心中，故不可信赖。若想是否能以论理之理智得知？非也，所证悟之实相之义超越世俗之识知。如是，《意集经》中云：譬喻或量式，或因明，或随念之智慧，不能证悟，如盲人测量天空之高度。《解深密经》中云：各别自证无相之行境，不可言说且世俗皆断绝，无诤论之胜义法，彼乃超越论理之境。又《楞伽经》中云：彼等孩童为论理者，如尸体般被彼等观察。那么，由何得知？《道次第》中云：以差别总摄三者。故能无遗地衡量极隐蔽之义者，唯有佛陀之无垢教言量，智者所造之口诀量，以及与二者相符而生之理智量三者，除此之外别无他法。故以周遍之三种量式得知。《释续金刚鬘》中云：以教言与理智，口诀之量式，衡量一切，将通达所知。《释续小疏》中