English
It is clearly shown that the Dharma seal with qualities truly reveals. Thirdly, the manner of arising: Nyang Tik, Glan Tik, and others consider there to be eight kinds. Considering the difference in aspiration, they are divided into two: skillful means and liberation. Considering the size of intelligence, they are divided into two: gradual and sudden. Considering whether or not to abandon the stages, they are divided into two: direct crossing and gradual. Considering whether or not attachment is pure, they are divided into two: with outflows and without outflows. Considering the size of the signs, they are divided into two: deity and non-conceptual meditation. Considering the tamable beings' harshness or gentleness, they are divided into two: peaceful and wrathful. Considering self-power and other-power, they are divided into two: wisdom and instructions. Considering whether or not samadhi is clear, they are divided into two: the manner of aspiration meditation and definitive completion meditation. However, here, the root of the path is the two: skillful means and liberation. Both of these arise depending on the faculties, entering gradually and suddenly, and therefore arise. Therefore, the great secret lord Sogphupa and Je Drinangpa and others' views that they should be explained as gradual and sudden seem very good, so they are explained as such. There are two: divisions and proofs. The first is: each of the two, the sharp faculty of nature and the sharp faculty of habituation, enters in two ways, gradually and suddenly, through the gate of great or small intelligence. As it says in the Stages of the Path: Also, by nature and habituation, becoming a vessel, near and far, by dividing into four parts, gradual and sudden, one enters the great yoga. Thus, there are four. The gradual one with the sharp faculty of habituation is one who has long practiced the common vehicle from previous lives, and in the first part of this life also practices the vehicle of the stages of the path, and then enters the Mahayana. The sudden one with sharp habituation is similar to the previous one in having practiced, and in this life enters the Mahayana from the beginning. The gradual one with the sharp faculty of nature is one who has not practiced from previous lives, and in the first part of this life only practices the lower vehicle temporarily on the stages of the path, and finally enters the Mahayana. The sudden one with sharp nature is one who has not practiced in previous lives, and in this life enters the Mahayana from the very beginning. Secondly, there are proofs of sharp habituation and sharp nature. The first is, as it says in the Stages of the Path: For kalpas equal to the dust of fields, one who is extremely habituated and well-established, lacking wisdom here
Chinese
为了进入。长短也是次第和同时的。等等，这是由显宗和密宗共同的诸多教理所成就的。第二，如果没有自生的敏锐，就会变成过失，因此要成立它。为了成立它，驳斥认为真正宣说此理的续部不是自生敏锐的行境。第一，有些人说，如果是根器敏锐，就必然是串习敏锐。但自性的根器敏锐的基础并不成立。如果是这样，世间凡夫的八种心也不应产生。凡是根器敏锐，就必然是串习敏锐，这是什么缘故呢？因为世间凡夫的八种心，在见道的次第藏中没有宣说。因为在那之前没有串习。如《道次第》中说：黑暗的意识之地，以自性之因持续存在。凡夫的八种心最终存在。以及《自生王释》中说：以法性的道理，从黑暗之地产生八种凡夫心。如果认为八种凡夫心是从黑暗之地产生的，那么认为没有自生敏锐的观点就破灭了。此外，凡是根器敏锐，就必然是串习敏锐。对于串习相同的人来说，不应有敏锐和迟钝。如果承认，那么显而易见。如果问，敏锐本身是先前串习的吗？或者是什么？回答说，没有串习或者是什么？不能用“是什么”来建立道理，这是大成就者上师善逝所说的。而且，大小乘的显现也不合理。对于串习相同的人来说，不应产生智慧的大小。如果没有智慧的大小，那么大小乘是不可能的。因为乘的次第是由智慧的差别来区分的。就像《意集经》中所说：因为有大小次第的智慧，所以乘的次第也是如此。第二，从教理、口诀、理证三个方面来成立。教理方面，《意集经》中说：金刚萨埵的净土中安住的这些大菩萨们，因为心的自性多种多样，所以有非常深奥的、不深奥的、广大的、狭隘的、敏锐的、迟钝的、快速的、缓慢的等等。听到密咒的言语，或次第或同时。以及《普贤王根本续》中说：天人的有情众生根器不同，有些人从一开始根器就非常坚定
English
For the purpose of entering. Length is also gradual and simultaneous. Etc., this is accomplished by many common scriptural reasons of both Sutra and Tantra. Second, if there is no self-arising sharpness, it will become a fault, therefore it must be established. To establish it, refute the assertion that the tantra that truly explains this reason is not the object of self-arising sharpness. First, some say that if one has sharp faculties, then one is necessarily trained sharp. But the basis of naturally sharp faculties is not established. If that is the case, then the eight minds of ordinary worldly beings should also not arise. Why is it that if one has sharp faculties, then one is necessarily trained sharp? Because the eight minds of ordinary worldly beings are not explained in the path section of the Sutra Pitaka. Because there was no training before that. As it says in the Lamrim: That very ground of dark consciousness, abides weakened by its own nature cause. The eight ordinary minds abide at the end. And in the commentary on the Self-Existing King: By the reasoning of the nature of phenomena, eight ordinary minds arise from the ground of darkness. If it is asserted that the eight ordinary minds arise from the ground of darkness, then the assertion that there is no self-arising sharpness is ruined. Furthermore, since if one has sharp faculties, then one is necessarily trained sharp, there should be no sharpness or dullness for those with equal training. If you assert that, then it is clear by direct perception. If you ask whether that sharpness itself was trained in the past or what, answer that it was not trained or what. The great accomplished master Sugata said that reasoning cannot be established with "what". Moreover, the appearance of the Great and Small Vehicles is also unreasonable. It is unreasonable for great and small minds to arise for those with equal training. If there is no great or small mind, then the Great and Small Vehicles are impossible, because the order of the vehicles is distinguished by the difference in intelligence. Likewise, in the Gongdu it says: Because there is intelligence of great and small order, so is the order of the vehicles. Second, to establish from three aspects: scripture, oral instruction, and reasoning. In terms of scripture, the Gongdu says: These great beings abiding in the pure land of Vajrasattva, because the nature of their minds is diverse, some are very profound, some are not profound, some are vast, some are narrow, some are sharp, some are dull, some are fast, some are slow, etc. Having heard the words of secret mantra, either gradually or simultaneously. And in the Kunjed Gyalpo it says: Because the faculties of gods and humans are not the same, some have faculties that are very firm from the beginning.
Chinese
也有一些是经过修习后才具有敏锐根器的。 如此说。 口诀是，《道次第》中说： “为了不修习而成就三种， 高显迅速广大， 深奥是因的补特伽罗。” 以及，《俱舍论》中也说：“有些从一开始就是那样， 有些是从修习中产生的。” 如此说。 理路方面， 有遮破、安立、舍弃三种。 第一种是， 拉杰达纳说道： “有情的心识相续广大， 您具有敏锐的根器，在基上成就， 因为在阿赖耶识上积累了各种习气。” 这样说不合理， 因为在阿赖耶识上安立习气， 需要依赖因缘听闻思惟的修习。 所以，自性的誓言就破损了。 第二种是， 秘密主多普巴的口中说： “有情的心识相续法， 您具有敏锐和迟钝的根器， 因为心的自性是多种多样的， 就像铁的锐利和迟钝一样。” 这样说，是远离过失的结合。 第三种是， 有些人说： “如果基上成就了锐利和迟钝， 那么就会导致基成为好坏的， 所以不合理。” 回答说， 杰涅敦和祖科说： “是基的体性成为好坏的， 还是反体成为好坏的？” 如果是前者， 因为是对锐利和迟钝所入的智慧进行观察， 所以没有遍。 如果是后者， 这正是所希望的， 因为从反体的好坏中显现出轮回和涅槃的多种多样。” 拉杰努辛说道： “基不会成为好坏的， 因为胜义谛中没有成就任何锐利和迟钝的根器。 世俗谛中，锐利和迟钝不会停止多种多样。 从无分别中解脱出对锐利和迟钝的执着。” 又有些人说， 自性的锐利是依赖于因缘听闻思惟，还是不依赖？ 如果是前者， 那么自性的誓言就破损了。 如果是后者， 那么就会导致不费力气就解脱了。 如果这样问， 那么铁的锐利和迟钝存在于因上，是依赖于因缘铁匠，还是不依赖？ 如果依赖， 那么这里也依赖于听闻思惟。 如果说， 那么就会导致不是自性锐利， 因为依赖于听闻思惟。 那么就比照说， 铁不是自性锐利， 因为依赖于因缘铁匠。 又如果说， 铁的自性锐利不依赖于因缘铁匠。 那么这里也应该说， 因缘听闻思惟不依赖。 未经修习的相续存在
English
Some have sharp faculties after cultivation. Thus it is said. The instruction is: From the Lamrim: "For the sake of not cultivating, accomplish three, High, manifest, swift, sharp, and vast, The profound is the individual of the cause." And also from the Treasury: "Some are that way from the beginning, Some are transformed from cultivation." Thus it is said. In terms of reasoning, there are three: refutation, establishment, and abandonment. The first is: Lhaje Darnak says: "The great stream of consciousness of sentient beings, You have sharp faculties established on the ground, Because various imprints have been accumulated on the base." That is not reasonable, because establishing imprints on the base requires relying on the cultivation of cause, condition, hearing, and thinking. Therefore, the vow of self-nature is broken. The second is: From the mouth of Secret Lord Dropukpa: "The stream of consciousness of sentient beings, You have sharp and dull faculties established, Because the nature of mind is diverse, Like the sharpness and dullness of iron." Thus it is said, it is a faultless combination. The third is: Some say: "If sharpness and dullness are established on the ground, then it would follow that the ground is good or bad, so it is not reasonable." In response, Je Nyeton and Zurkhor say: "Does the essence of the ground become good or bad, or does the reverse become good or bad?" If it is the former, then there is no pervasion, because it is an examination of the wisdom that enters sharpness and dullness. If it is the latter, then that is what is desired, because from the goodness and badness of the reverse, samsara and nirvana appear in various ways. Lhaje Nupshin says: "The ground does not become good or bad, because in ultimate truth, no sharp or dull faculties are established. In conventional truth, sharpness and dullness do not cease to be diverse. From non-duality, one is liberated from the attachment to the difference between sharpness and dullness." Again, some say, Does the self-sharpness depend on the condition of hearing and thinking, or does it not depend? If it is the former, then the vow of self-nature is broken. If it is the latter, then it would follow that one is liberated effortlessly. If that is the question, then does the sharpness and dullness of iron that exists in the cause depend on the condition of the blacksmith, or does it not depend? If it depends, then here also it depends on hearing and thinking. If you say, then it would follow that it is not self-sharp, because it depends on hearing and thinking. Then compare and say, iron is not self-sharp, because it depends on the condition of the blacksmith. Again, if you say that the self-sharpness of iron does not depend on the condition of the blacksmith, then here also it should be said that the condition of hearing and thinking does not depend. The uncultivated streams exist