English
The cause and condition for the ripening of fruit, becoming capable, are known as the land of the Vidyadharas. Thus it is said. Firstly, as it is said: "The meaning of the basis of the stages of the path and the establishment of reasoning." In this way, it is to be understood through the three doors of Dharma: the object to be measured is the measure, the reasoning that establishes it, and the tenet established by it. The first has four: the object to be measured, what kind of wisdom it is the object of, clarifying the incidental need, and refuting disputes. The first is the attachment to the self-nature of grasping and being grasped in the Dharma of samsara, and the attachment and clinging to the body and wisdom of nirvana or the spiritual friends of the path. As it is said: "The stages of the path should examine the appearances of attachment to samsara and nirvana." Therefore. Secondly, if it is the object of what kind of wisdom, then the conceptualization of the mind that is completely examined, that itself, through the condition of the first wisdom, becomes the object of experience of the wisdom that does not dwell in the intermediate thought. As it is said: "The object of experience is the object of expression, the reasoning of individual discernment is the condition." And, "The stages of the path, moreover, the knowledge that is completely examined becomes intermediate," is also because it is the object of the intermediate. Thus it is said. Thirdly, it is necessary to make the boundary of the reasoning complete and to clarify doubts, there are two: dispelling the doubt of having no object to be measured, and dispelling the doubt of being immeasurable. The first is, one should think about whether the wisdom that transforms into the dwelling place of the mind measures nirvana or measures samsara. Initially, nirvana cannot be measured by its own characteristics, because for the first action, it becomes hidden to the knowledge of the lineage of faith and practice. As it is said: "Whether the appearance of cessation is experienced or not, how can it be the object of measurement? If one measures the appearance of cessation, then it becomes hidden to the first action." Furthermore, because there is no imputation on its own characteristics, it is also not necessary to measure, like the appearance of a white conch. As it is said: "The nature of the three stages is completely free from all extremes." If one says that one measures the aspect of imputation of attachment to nirvana, then it is not permissible to be attached to what has not become an object, and the attachment itself is not nirvana. As it is said: "The appearance of attachment to nirvana in the mind, that itself is nirvana, the three wisdoms cannot be done without." Secondly, even the mere appearance of the self-nature of samsara is measured.
Chinese
因为是随自己显现的种姓。如是说：显现自性的特点是，不是所说之义，因为是种姓显现的缘故；不是所量之义，因为是生起的缘故；不是境，是成立的边和显现。如此。另外，仅仅显现也不是道的所破，因为世俗谛是所知的事物之实相，不能以理证破斥。如果破斥，则会变成过失，因为在道上会变成破斥福德资粮，以及断绝如所有智的智慧之流。因为如此。如是说，《中观》：显现的自性是什么，不能破斥，否则，会变成痛苦之因的，对真实的执着是应遮止的。如此。此处再反驳一下，认为轮回的自相是刹那，是不合理的，因为对于它来说，不是圣者智慧的对境之外的。对于轮回来说，轮回的自相是不确定的，而且圣者本身也会变成错乱。如果说是在执着增益的识上衡量，则有三个过失，因为首先增益是无实有的，所以所破不成，如是说：分别假立于内运用，所用的基础未成立。如此。而且，识本身在第二刹那不住留，所以能衡量和所衡量聚集也不存在，如是说：虚妄分别戏论的刹那，前一刹那已逝，后一刹那生起，不能依此而衡量。如此。另外，第三个过失是，因为遍计本身转变成寻思识，所以不能用它来衡量它本身，就像剑不能砍自己，或者手指不能触碰自己一样。如是说：道次第，遍计识变成中间，总相无身如影，因为不存在，所以不能触碰自己，就像手指一样需要。如此。如果说，虽然如此，但不衡量轮回和涅槃两者的自相，而是衡量执着轮回的器情或者身，以及涅槃的智慧的增益境，而且因为没有依止从根本上断除遍计的对治修习的智慧，所以在寻思识之后，遍计仍然可以生起的执着境上，认为这是这个而衡量。
English
Because it is the lineage that appears according to one's own perception. As it is said: The characteristic of appearance itself is, it is not the meaning of what is said, because it is the appearance of lineage; it is not the object of measurement, because it is arising; it is not an object, it is the established extreme and appearance. Thus. Furthermore, mere appearance is not the object to be refuted on the path, because the conventional truth is the reality of things to be known, and cannot be refuted by reasoning. If it is refuted, it will become a fault, because on the path it will become the refutation of the accumulation of merit, and the cutting off of the stream of wisdom that knows all things as they are. Because of this. As it is said, "Madhyamaka": Whatever is the nature of appearance, cannot be refuted, otherwise, the attachment to truth, which becomes the cause of suffering, should be prevented. Thus. Here again, to refute that the self-characteristic of samsara is momentary is not reasonable, because for it, it is not other than the object of the wisdom of the noble ones. For samsara, the self-characteristic of samsara is uncertain, and the noble ones themselves will become confused. If it is said that it is measured on the consciousness of clinging to imputation, then there are three faults, because firstly, imputation is unreal, so the object to be refuted is not established, as it is said: "Discrimination and imputation are used internally, the basis of use is not established." Thus. Moreover, consciousness itself does not stay in the second moment, so the gathering of the measurer and the measured does not exist, as it is said: "The moment of false conceptual proliferation, the previous moment has passed, the next moment arises, it is not appropriate to measure based on that." Thus. Furthermore, the third fault is that, because the conceptualization itself transforms into the thinking consciousness, it cannot be measured by itself, just as a sword cannot cut itself, or a finger cannot touch itself. As it is said: "The stages of the path, the conceptual consciousness becomes intermediate, the general object is bodiless like a shadow, because it does not exist, it cannot touch itself, it needs to be like a finger." Thus. If it is said that, although this is true, it does not measure the self-characteristic of both samsara and nirvana, but measures the imputed object of clinging to samsara as the vessel and essence or body, and nirvana as wisdom, and because there is no reliance on the wisdom of cultivating the antidote that completely abandons conceptualization from the root, after the thinking consciousness, on the object of clinging where conceptualization can still arise, it is thought to measure, thinking, "This is this."
Chinese
如是说：显现本身即是刹那智，对此也各自进行各自的观察。然而，对于刹那三智之前的执着显现进行衡量吗？是对未来还是现在进行衡量？前两者是不允许的，因为过去已灭，未来尚未生起为境。如是说：显现，前者已逝，不可见，后者未来，不可考察。如是对现在进行衡量吗？如果是，是境与识聚合后衡量，还是不聚合而衡量？如果是后者，则盲人也应能见色。凡是境识不聚合者，遍不是现量之所量，如同隐蔽处的妇女。如果是前者，则行者应具有两个识流，因为识流刹那的衡量者与所衡量者相同。凡是矛盾聚合者，遍具有本体之物的不同，如冷触与热触。如果承认，则不可能，如是说：行者不具有两个心流，两种证悟不会同时进入，这很清楚。如果也承认本体之物不同，也是不允许的，如是说：道次第也完全考察，根于境显现的一切，并非存在于境中，而是显现为非境成立的边。对此的回答有两种：破斥他宗，和安立自宗。首先，一些人说：执着是识之总境，而自相刹那的安住转变是各自证悟的智慧，因此境识不混杂，所以存在所衡量，也没有具有两个识流的过失，这种说法是不合理的。执着的流，是依赖自相刹那，还是不依赖？如果是后者，则因应成为无事物，因为不依赖于作者之物。凡是不由微细刹那所作者，粗大的相续是不可能存在的，如不依赖于名、词、字母，则不会出现善说。如果承认，则“最终的知识在刹那间知晓”这句话就很清楚了。如果是前者，则从南方来的刹那，刹那间转变为思识，因此，执着之境应成为断灭。凡是物安住转变，则物的相续也安住转变，如同男根。如果承认，则执着之境应成为所衡量
English
As it is said: The manifestation itself is the moment of wisdom. Regarding this, examine each individually. However, does one measure the appearance of clinging before the three moments of wisdom? Does one measure it in the future or in the present? The first two are not permissible, because the past has ceased and the future has not yet arisen as an object. As it is said: Manifestation, the former has passed and is invisible, the latter is future and cannot be examined. If one measures it in the present, does one measure it after the object and consciousness have gathered, or does one measure it without gathering? If it is the latter, then even a blind person should be able to see forms. Whatever does not gather object and consciousness is not the object of direct perception, like a woman in a hidden place. If it is the former, then the practitioner should have two streams of consciousness, because the measurer and the measured of the moment of consciousness are the same. Whatever gathers contradictions is pervaded by the difference in the substance of the entity, like hot touch and cold touch. If one admits this, it is not possible, as it is said: A practitioner does not have two streams of mind, two realizations do not enter simultaneously, which is clear. If one also admits that the substance of the entity is different, it is not permissible, as it is said: The stages of the path are also completely examined, all appearances to the senses are not in the object, but appear as the limit of non-object establishment. There are two answers to this: refuting the views of others and establishing one's own views. First, some say: Clinging is the general object of consciousness, and the abiding transformation of the self-characterized moment is the wisdom of individual realization, therefore object and consciousness are not mixed, so there is a measurable object, and there is no fault of having two streams of consciousness. This statement is unreasonable. Does the stream of clinging depend on the self-characterized moment, or does it not depend on it? If it is the latter, then the cause should become non-existent, because it does not depend on the substance of the maker. Whatever is not made by a subtle moment, a coarse continuum cannot exist, just as without relying on names, words, and letters, good speech will not arise. If one admits this, then the statement "the ultimate knowledge knows in an instant" is clear. If it is the former, then the moment from the south transforms into thought-consciousness in an instant, therefore, the object of clinging should become extinct. Whatever object abides and transforms, the continuum of the object also abides and transforms, like a hermaphrodite's organ. If one admits this, then the object of clinging should become the measurable object
Chinese
被称为“摧毁誓言”。又一个寻衅者说，即使心识转变为个别自证智，但执着阿赖耶识的存在仍然是可以衡量的。这样说也是不合理的，因为阿赖耶识的自相在经中是不分别行境且远离的，并且不显现为个别类别。因为它是离分别的非复合，所以对于普遍概念的对境的执着不会中断，并且诸如此类的习气是由七识积聚的。特别是，五根识是普遍不变的自性。任何也不是中观，因为除了无分别的显现之外，它不执着也不安住于执着境。染污意执着于此，并观察它。不确定，向外行走的二者不可得。因为阿赖耶识是内在天人的意识，所以它不会普遍分别外境。如果它本身是可以衡量的，那也是不行的。如是说：在此世间的道次第中有什么？名字和相的执着，错误的个别、自共相，应如何安住并实践？因此，可衡量之物本身与普遍概念的意识相违背。因此，与普遍概念的意识相异的阿赖耶识等七识，不是个别自证智所能衡量的，因为对于目标和形象的差异没有任何执着。就像未成为相之境的虚空一样，这是不可得之相的否定。此外，个别自证的思维之树，如同其他例子的执着显现一样，是被意识所舍弃还是不舍弃？如果是后者，那么所确立的宗派本身就变成了伟大的见地，因为执着显现的一方面没有被否定。凡是繁琐的，对一方面进行崇拜，都是一种短暂的宗派，就像柱子和瓶子一样。如果承认，那么就必须见到具足一切形象的空性。如果是前者，那么是由于舍弃对治的集合而舍弃，还是即使不集合也舍弃？如果是前者，那么过失仍然存在。如果是后者，那么意识在没有对治的情况下就会颠倒，因为没有对治和集合。又是我的上师罗：在意识普遍概念的状态中，即使转变为个别自证智，但仍然因为没有依赖于相续中的修习智慧