English
Through detachment, radiating uninterrupted rays of desire and merging them into the realm of non-duality, the fruit attained by such action is empowerment over life beyond the two paths of seeing, namely, the union of the essence of supreme accomplishment with the five bodies. To this, some say: Is there a difference between a single mandala, three mandalas, and five mandalas? If according to the latter (that there is a difference), then the scriptures clearly state that there is a difference. Then, if there is a difference in the fruit, but no difference in the cause (mandala), what contradiction is there? He replies: The fruit, as a phenomenon, will not change according to the cause, because in the absence of a difference in the cause, a difference in the fruit is observed. The first part of this argument (no difference in the cause) is admitted, and the second part (difference in the fruit is observed) is established by the scriptures. From the fact that there is no difference in the cause but a difference in the fruit is observed, it follows that the fruit will not change according to the cause. If this is admitted, then the negation of the cause implies the negation of the fruit, thus eliminating this claim. Furthermore, if there is a difference between the three mandalas, then the main deity of the one mandala in "All in the Vajra family are centers," and the main deity of the three mandalas in "Its essence," and the main deity of the five mandalas in "And five mandalas," these three would become not the same in essence as Vajrasattva, because there is a difference between them. This argument is admitted, and it is admitted that things that are different do not have the same essence. If this is admitted, then it is clear that the main deity of the three mandalas is the same as Vajrasattva. The answer to this is: Although there are slight differences in the number of deities depending on the object of meditation (mandala), the essence of the deities is the same, so the first fault does not exist. Then, if the difference between the three fruits is said not to change according to the cause, is it because the essence of the three mandalas is the same? This statement is not universally true. Even for the same object of meditation, differences in the number, clarity of form, and expansion or contraction of the mandala depend on the capacity of the practitioner as the basis and the stages of learning the path. However, these are not differences in the object of meditation, but differences in the practitioner, so the latter fault does not exist either. As it says in the Vajra text: "Combined with the manner of faith. The deities of the single mandala." etc. Furthermore, a single mandala
Chinese
有时说果为大手印，有时说第三个是任运持明，有时说第五个获得果位佛，那么如所说般能获得吗？如果获得，则会得出从积聚修行中生起顿超的结论。承认这个论式。周遍成立。如果承认，那么根据《道次第》，殊胜道的分界点是一样的。这样说，无漏道的汇集点和分界点是见道，这很清楚。如果不能获得，那么就与所说的能获得的教证相违。一般来说，顿超产生的地方有三种：理解、产生的理由。第一，在有漏道的时候，从一个手印和有戏论二者产生的情况并不普遍。在无漏道的时候，从见道灌顶和修道大手印二者产生的情况并不普遍。第二，是从道中遗失，而将数量上的下者与意义上的上者结合。第三，道次第中，某个地方有从道中遗失的情况；二是自然智慧广大；三是修习空性大悲无别的道者，这三者聚集在一个基础上才会产生，否则不会产生。因此，修习大空性和幻化大悲的瑜伽士自然智慧广大。虽然道、一个手印、有戏论积聚修行和三者之间有遗失的情况，但因为不是修习空性大悲无别的道，所以不会产生顿超。有漏无间道的积聚修行是智慧最广大的，无漏道的尽头，任运持明是智慧最广大的，二者都是自然智慧广大。虽然也是修习空性大悲无别的道者，但因为没有从道中遗失，所以不会产生顿超。异熟持明也是修习空性大悲无别的道者，也有从道中遗失的情况，修道和尽头道二者都有，但因为自然智慧狭小，所以不会产生顿超。那么，经论中说三个积聚的三个果，这与之前的教证相违吗？没有过失。这些教证是旁述修行旁述遮遣的教证，所以应该这样理解：也就是，以一个积聚所获得的灌顶，与大手印持明相结合。积
English
Sometimes it is said that the result is Mahamudra, sometimes it is said that the third is Spontaneous Awareness Holder, and sometimes it is said that the fifth attains the result of Buddhahood. So, can it be attained as it is said? If it is attained, then it would follow that Breakthrough arises from accumulation practice. The sign is accepted. The pervasion is established by valid cognition. If you accept that, then according to the Lamrim, the dividing point of the supreme path is the same. Thus, it is clear that the meeting point and dividing point of the uncontaminated path is the Path of Seeing. If it is not attained, then it contradicts the scriptures that say it can be attained. Generally, there are three places where Breakthrough arises: understanding, the reason for arising. First, in the case of the contaminated path, it is not universally true that it arises from one mudra and two with elaboration. In the case of the uncontaminated path, it is not universally true that it arises from the empowerment of the Path of Seeing and the Mahamudra of the Path of Meditation. Second, it is something that is lost from the path and combines the lower in number with the higher in meaning. Third, in the Lamrim, wherever there is a loss from the path; two, natural intelligence is great; three, the practitioner who meditates on emptiness and compassion without separation, these three gather on one basis, then it will arise, otherwise it will not arise. Therefore, the yogis who meditate on great emptiness and illusory compassion are naturally intelligent. Although there is loss between the path, one mudra, elaborated accumulation practice, and the three, Breakthrough does not arise because it is not the path of meditating on emptiness and compassion without separation. The accumulation practice of the uncontaminated uninterrupted path is the most intelligent, and at the end of the uncontaminated path, the Spontaneous Awareness Holder is the most intelligent, both of which are naturally intelligent. Although they are also practitioners who meditate on emptiness and compassion without separation, Breakthrough does not arise because there is no loss from the path. The Ripening Awareness Holder is also a practitioner who meditates on emptiness and compassion without separation, and there is also loss from the path, both the Path of Meditation and the Path of Completion, but because natural intelligence is small, Breakthrough does not arise. So, if the scriptures say that the three results of the three accumulations contradict the previous scriptures? There is no fault. These scriptures are scriptures that incidentally accomplish and incidentally refute, so it should be understood in this way: that is, the empowerment obtained by one accumulation is combined with the Mahamudra Awareness Holder. Accum
Chinese
通过修持第三品所获得的灌顶，是与任运持明相连的。通过修持第五品所获得的灌顶，是与最终的果位佛陀相连的，这是经文中的记载。这不是从积聚次第中产生顿超的经文，而是从灌顶中产生顿超的经文，因此顺便消除了认为从异熟中产生顿超的观点。又有人说，积聚次第的果是异熟和灌顶中的任何一个，而经文说，基道大手印一三五品的果是道位究竟时获得佛陀和三身，这不合理。如果是那样的话，那么就像这部经的第九品中所说的那样，初学者进入形象坛城，最终道者也具有同等资格，这也是不合理的。有人说，那是考虑到以后成就，如果这样说，那么这里也一样，这样就进行了类比。如果灌顶的果有好坏，那么一三五品的本尊也会有好坏吗？虽然本尊没有好坏，但是根据修行者智慧的大小，会有高低之分。如果修持一三五品所获得的异熟持明也有上中下三种智慧，这是否合理？这是允许的。如果从异熟中也产生顿超，这是否合理？这并不成立，因为异熟的直接结果只能获得大手印，虽然将因果与更高的道相连，但由于时间有快慢，所以差别非常大。那么，这个积聚次第的修持是有漏还是无漏？是有所缘还是无所缘？一般来说，有有漏有缘和无漏无缘的四种情况。有漏有缘的道是大空性、慈悲幻化、一味合一、有相大手印四种。有漏无缘的道是积聚次第。无漏无缘的道是四种持明。无漏有缘的道是小乘的最终果位，即无漏阿罗汉进入密咒乘，安住于积聚和结合的道上。然而，这些有所缘都是针对世俗谛而言的，并不普遍。有些人认为，烦恼意转化为平等性智
English
The empowerment obtained through the practice of the third section is connected to the spontaneously accomplished vidyādhara. The empowerment obtained through the practice of the fifth section is connected to the ultimate result, the Buddha, as stated in the scriptures. This is not a scripture that states the arising of leap-over from the accumulation stage, but rather a scripture that states the arising of leap-over from the empowerment. Therefore, it incidentally eliminates the view that leap-over arises from the maturation. Furthermore, someone might say: "The result of the accumulation practice is either maturation or empowerment, but the scriptures say that the result of the Ground Path Mahāmudrā one, three, and five sections is the attainment of the Buddha and the three kāyas at the end of the path of meditation, which is unreasonable." If that were the case, then it would also be unreasonable, as stated in the ninth chapter of this very text, that beginners who enter the image mandala and those at the end of the path have equal fortune. Someone might say: "That refers to later accomplishments." If so, it is the same here, and thus an analogy is drawn. If there are good and bad results from the empowerment, does that mean that the deities of the one, three, and five sections also have good and bad qualities? Although the deities of the sections do not have good or bad qualities, high and low arise depending on the size of the practitioner's mind. If the maturation vidyādhara obtained through the practice of the one, three, and five sections also has three types of intelligence—superior, middling, and inferior—is that acceptable? It is accepted. If leap-over also arises from maturation, is that acceptable? That is not established, because the direct result of maturation is only the attainment of Mahāmudrā. Although connecting cause and effect to the higher path, the difference is very great due to the speed and slowness of time. So, is this accumulation practice with or without outflows? Is it with or without an object of focus? Generally, there are four possibilities: with and without outflows, and with and without an object of focus. The path that has both outflows and an object of focus is the Great Emptiness, Compassionate Illusion, One Taste, and the Four-fold Mahāmudrā with elaboration. The path that has outflows but no object of focus is the accumulation practice of the sections. The path that has neither outflows nor an object of focus is the four vidyādharas. The path that is without outflows but has an object of focus is the ultimate result of the Lesser Vehicle, the Arhat without outflows, who enters the Mantra Vehicle and abides on the path of accumulation and union. However, these objects of focus are all in reference to the conventional truth and are not universal. Some say that the afflictive emotions and mind are not transformed into the wisdom of equality.
Chinese
如果有人认为，只要未获得八地，就一直处于可退转的道上。如经中所说：‘只要未得八地，就会畏惧小乘。’如果这样说，那么，这段引文是指未清净七地的菩萨，如果失毁了菩提心，则有堕入小乘的危险。而不是指道会退转回轮回。又问，在有漏中，能否见到法性自相？答：在有漏中不能见到法性自相，因为无漏已经见到了。断尽有漏和见到法性自相是同时的。因此，经中说有漏的禅定能见到法性的意义，是指见到总相，而不是指见到自相。又问，在任何道位之下，法性是否明显有差别？如果明显，则有漏中不应见到法性自相。如果承认，则与前面所说的相违。如果不明显，那么，《道次第》中说：‘明的分位次第行。’如果这样说，那么，对此，藏巴孩童说：不明显，因为是法性自相。存在时间长短的差别，因为在向上行进的道位上，越来越稳固。纽顿说：道的差别在于是否明显。嘉瓦贡巴说：明显与否和时间长短都有。前者在《道次第》中说：‘明的分位次第行。’这已经很明显了，后者在《总经》中说：‘刹那、顷刻、瞬间、立刻、半个时辰、一个时辰。’等等，这些都说得很清楚。虽然这样说，但这四种观点没有区分见和禅定。见到法性总相是见解的总义，见到自相是见解的自相。这样，从见解的角度来说，没有明显与否和时间长短。而那些说有这些差别的引文，是指修习所见之义的禅定，有明显与否和时间长短的说法。那么，这是否意味着玛哈瑜伽的见和修是不同的？因为见解没有明显与否和时间长短，而修行却有。如果这样说，那么，按照这种说法，道和果也应该是不同的。所要获得的果和，获得