English
If one practices the path without laying the foundation, then one should not see the truth. If one can see even without accumulating because of previous accumulation, then what is the point? It is said that accumulation is the main vow. The Ru Chok sect says: If it exists by nature and not by accumulation, then the lineage of the rich who have not given alms, the lineage of the uncultivated should also appear pure, because it does not exist. The Ru Chokyong sect says: Both are true. Because faith exists. Saying this is unreasonable, does the habit of establishing sharply depend on the causes and conditions of hearing and thinking, or not? If it is like the former, then the nature itself is lost. If it is like the latter, then the habit that does not depend on causes and conditions is unreasonable, because there is no establisher. As it is said: The mind is established by the previous one, the ability is considered to be a habit. Because it is said so. If it is not the former, but the existence of habit seems to be the main thing, then it should be investigated, which one is established first, habit or Alaya consciousness? If Alaya consciousness is first, then the establishment of nature is lost, because it is later. If habit is first, then where does the habit without Alaya consciousness store? If at the same time, then they cannot be the basis for each other, like the left and right horns of a cow. Also, Venerable Nyariwo Kha said: The mind stream of sentient beings, the Dharma, becomes sharp and dull faculties, because the nature of the mind is diverse. What is said is the stainless yogi. To this, the other's three faults of approximation are: becoming the basis of good and bad, the appearance of pure lineage without relying on cultivation, and not allowing the refutation of the substance of my eternal Dharma, like the change of a vase. There are two answers: refuting the views of others and stating one's own views. In the first answer, Sle Dorje Woka separates and says: Does it say that there is a difference between sharpness and dullness on the basis, or does it say that there is no difference? If it is like the former, then the sign is not established, if it is like the latter, then the pervasion is not established. Saying this is unreasonable, because in any case, it itself is pervasive, does the self-continuum Dharma nature itself speak from the aspect of nature, or from the difference of the Dharmas? If it is like the former, then it is impossible to have a nature's faculty, because there is not even a hair of sharpness and dullness on the nature, like dust. Whatever is sharp
Chinese
如果安立为自性，则周遍于有差别，如男性的阳具一样。如果按照第二种方式，则一切有情成为一个心识流，因为甚至细微的差别特征，也如同时间尽头的刹那般，没有不成立的。如果承认，那么当义成佛陀成佛时，轮回的止息将成为空无，这是可笑之处。再者，自性的锐利，是依赖于像对立面一样的事物，还是不依赖？如果按照第一种方式，则成为非自性，因为依赖于其他法。如果按照第二种方式，则锐利的差别特征将不成立。分别阐述自宗的理由和答复如下：是说本体成为好坏的具有者吗？还是说反体成为好坏的具有者？如果是第一种，因为锐利和迟钝进入的智慧进行观察，所以对于本体，周遍不成立。如果是第二种，那仅仅是承认而已。即使那样，反体是从本体自身分离出来的吗？还是具有从其他分离出来的性质呢？仅仅在抬头的瞬间，在本体如瓶子般的上面，所作和无常的反体以不同的方式存在，那也是从本体自身分离出来的吗？还是从其他分离出来的呢？这样提问，第二种是前论者和后论者都不能成立的，如果按照第一种方式，那么这里也说是从本体自身分离出来的。如果说基的本体也成为好坏的具有者，因为不能区分锐利和迟钝以及事物，那么是相同的，瓶子的本体也成为具有两个部分，因为不能区分所作和无常以及事物。如果说这是，那么这里也是相同的。如果说以胜义的行持种类，没有好坏，那么这里也清楚地说明，以世俗的行持智慧，没有两个部分。周遍不成立，因为所作和无常是瓶子的反体，但瓶子的本体不会变成两个部分，如果这样说，我也说锐利和迟钝是基的反体，但锐利和迟钝的基的本体不会变成好坏的具有者，直到存在边际之间都是在胡搅蛮缠。在《圣教庄严经》中也说，如是说：本体啊，因为法的界限是无别的，种类是不允许有差别的，依赖于法反体的差别，完全宣说它的差别。这样说。第二种的周遍也不成立，因为锐利和迟钝进入的智慧上进行分别安立。即使那样，自性具有的锐利同时产生，是依赖于听闻和思维的因缘，还是不依赖？
English
If it is established as self-nature, it is pervaded by having differences, like a man's penis. If according to the second way, then all sentient beings become one mindstream, because even subtle distinguishing characteristics, like a moment at the end of time, are not unestablished. If you accept this, then when Dondup Buddha attains enlightenment, the cessation of samsara would be empty, which is laughable. Furthermore, is the sharpness of self-nature dependent on something like an opposite, or is it not dependent? If according to the first way, then it becomes non-self-nature, because it depends on other dharmas. If according to the second way, then the distinguishing characteristic of sharpness will not be established. Separately explain the reasons and answers of one's own system as follows: Are you saying that the essence becomes the possessor of good and bad, or are you saying that the opposite becomes the possessor of good and bad? If the first, because sharpness and dullness enter the mind and are examined, therefore, the pervasion is not established for the essence. The second is merely an admission. Even so, is that opposite separated from the essence itself, or does it have the nature of being separated from something else? At the moment of looking up, on top of the essence like a vase, the opposite of being made and impermanent exists in different ways, is that also separated from the essence itself, or is it separated from something else? Asking this, the second is not established by either the former or the latter opponent, and if according to the first way, then here too it is said to be separated from the essence itself. If it is said that the essence of the base also becomes the possessor of good and bad, because sharpness and dullness and things cannot be distinguished, then it is the same, the essence of the vase also becomes having two parts, because being made and impermanent and things cannot be distinguished. If you say this, then here too it is the same. If you say that there is no good or bad by the ultimate conduct type, then here too it is clearly stated that there are no two parts in the conventional conduct knowledge. The pervasion is not established, because being made and impermanent is the opposite of the vase, but the essence of the vase will not become two parts, if you say so, I also say that sharpness and dullness are the opposite of the base, but the essence of the base of sharpness and dullness will not become the possessor of good and bad, and it is confusing until the end of existence. In the Ornament of the Scriptures, it is also said, as it is said: Essence, because the realm of dharma is undifferentiated, the type is not allowed to be different, depending on the difference of the dharma opposite, its difference is completely declared. Thus it is said. The pervasion of the second is also not established, because it is distinguished and established on the mind that enters sharpness and dullness. Even so, does the sharpness that arises simultaneously from self-nature depend on the conditions of hearing and thinking, or does it not depend?
Chinese
如果按照第一种说法，就变得和修习没有差别了。如果按照第二种说法，就会变成没有修习的相续也能成立清净，是这样吗？对于第一种说法需要进行考察。是说依赖于后面的闻思吗？还是说依赖于这本身的闻思？第一种情况，不承认这个理由。如果按照第二种说法，仅仅如此也不会变得和修习没有差别，那是什么呢？就像蘑菇破土而出一样。如果按照第一种说法，这里也依赖于闻思。如果说，因为依赖于闻思，所以推论为不是自性锐利，那么，你的铁因为依赖于工匠，所以推论为不是自性锐利。如果按照第一种说法，这里也可能出现没有修习的相续清净的情况，那么，那里也同样会推论为铁制的武器能够发挥作用。此外，构成铁的锐利微粒和果实的精华大小，是依赖于因缘还是不依赖？通过考察这个问题，也会同样陷入困境。第三种情况，作用的周遍性不成立，因为考察不依赖于因缘，而这里不承认这一点。如果那样，自性的三法就丧失了，是这样吗？虽然是这样，但这里只是抓住自性的一些法，而不是具有三法圆满的特征。就像牦牛和犏牛不具备所有的特征，但仍然能够发挥作用并可以作为象征一样。虽然这样说，我认为锐利的区分依赖于因缘，但因为不依赖于本体而成立，所以具备自性的法。就像自性法界在没有显现之前，不能发挥去除障碍的作用一样。道路的区分有：本体和差别。本体是方便的决定意义和智慧解脱道两种。正如所说：三次第第，二种中观，解脱道方便中显示。就是这样。这二者的差别是观点不同。外道一方有人说，显现地见到后，以外在的方式修持是解脱道，以内在的方式修持是方便，这种说法不合理。如果那样，《心要品》第十三品中说：菩提心是金刚之聚，根境时识等，皆为普贤之坛城，大心胜义之，大悲智慧。
English
If according to the first statement, it becomes no different from practice. If according to the second statement, it would become that even an unpracticed continuum can be established as pure, is that so? The first statement needs to be examined. Is it said to depend on the subsequent hearing and contemplation? Or is it said to depend on the hearing and contemplation of this itself? The first case does not accept the reason. If according to the second statement, it would not become no different from practice merely by that, then what is it? It is like a mushroom bursting out of the ground. If according to the first statement, here too it depends on hearing and contemplation. If you say that because it depends on hearing and contemplation, it follows that it is not naturally sharp, then your iron, because it depends on the blacksmith, it follows that it is not naturally sharp. If according to the first statement, here too it may occur that an unpracticed continuum is pure, then there too it would follow that an iron weapon can perform its function. Furthermore, whether the sharp particles of the iron material and the size of the essence of the fruit depend on conditions or not, by examining this question, one will also fall into the same predicament. In the third case, the pervasiveness of the function is not established, because the examination does not depend on conditions, and here that is not admitted. If that is the case, the three qualities of nature are lost, is that so? Although that is true, here it is only grasping some qualities of nature, and it is not characterized by the completeness of the three qualities. Just as yaks and dzos do not possess all the characteristics, but they can still function and can be designated as symbols. Although it is said so, I think that the distinction of sharpness depends on conditions, but because it is established without depending on the essence itself, it possesses the qualities of nature. Just as the nature of the Dharmadhatu cannot function to remove obscurations until it is manifested. The divisions of the path are: the actual and the particular. The actual are the definitive meaning of skillful means and the path of wisdom liberation, two types. As it is said: The three stages are two types of Madhyamaka, the path of liberation is shown as skillful means. That is it. The difference between these two is that the views are different. Some outsiders say that realizing the manifest view and practicing it outwardly is the path of liberation, and practicing it inwardly is skillful means, but this is not reasonable. If that were the case, the thirteenth chapter of the Essence says: The Bodhicitta is a collection of vajras, the faculties, objects, times, and consciousnesses, are all the mandala of Samantabhadra, the great mind of the supreme, the compassion and wisdom.