English
It is called "Destroying the Vow." Again, a fault-finder says that even if the mind transforms into individual self-cognizance, the existence of clinging to the alaya-consciousness is still measurable. This is also unreasonable because the self-nature of the alaya-consciousness is non-conceptual and free from activity according to the sutras, and it does not appear as individual categories. Because it is a non-composite free from conceptualization, the clinging to the objects of universal concepts is not interrupted, and the predispositions of such are accumulated by the seven consciousnesses. In particular, the five sense consciousnesses are universally unchanging in nature. It is also not anything or Madhyamaka, because apart from mere non-conceptual appearance, it does not cling to or abide in the object of clinging. The afflicted mind clings to it and observes it. Uncertain, the two that go outward are not perceived. Because the alaya-consciousness is the consciousness of the inner deity, it does not universally conceptualize external objects. If it itself is measurable, that is also not permissible. As it is said: What is there in this world in the stages of the path? The clinging to names and signs, the mistaken individual, self, and general characteristics, how should they abide and be practiced? Therefore, the measurable itself contradicts the consciousness of universal concepts. Therefore, the seven consciousnesses such as the alaya-consciousness, which are different from the consciousness of universal concepts, are not measurable by individual self-cognizance, because there is no clinging to the differences of objects and appearances. Like space that has not become an object of signs, this is the negation of the sign of imperceptibility. Furthermore, is the tree of thought of individual self-cognizance, like the clinging appearance of other examples, abandoned or not abandoned by the mind consciousness itself? If it is the latter, then the established tenet itself becomes a great view, because one aspect of the clinging appearance is not negated. Whatever is elaborate, worshiping one aspect, is a temporary tenet, like a pillar and a pot. If admitted, then one must see emptiness that possesses all aspects. If it is the former, then is it abandoned due to the collection of abandonment and antidote, or is it abandoned even without collection? If it is the former, then the fault remains. If it is the latter, then the mind consciousness becomes inverted without an antidote, because there is no antidote and collection. Again, my guru Ro: In the state of mind's universal concept, even if it transforms into individual self-cognizance, it is still because it does not rely on the wisdom of meditation in the continuum.
Chinese
那么，在那上面可以生起遍计吗？在那可以产生执着的刹那，各自如实地衡量，在一个本体上，以不同的方式，不会变成具有两个识流，就像在巨大的河流中挥舞手臂，或者像人照镜子一样。有人说，如果通过辨别先前是否聚集来否定，那么即使是有缺陷的例子也没有意义，就像手臂和河流，或者脸和镜子是不同的事物一样，所量和能量的二者也是不同的事物。因为这具有相同的意义。如果特点在自续上成立，如果承认，那么就像道次第不是所缘的成立的边见一样，这很明显。自宗认为，遍计的意识，由于最初智慧的缘故，以各种正确行持的思考智慧，虽然会短暂地改变状态，但由于尚未依赖见道，因此仍然可以在其上生起遍计。也就是说，不是在识流的刹那上，同时显现并衡量，而是一个显现时，另一个处于潜伏状态，因此以前后相遇的方式衡量。现在，第一刹那只是相遇，第二刹那开始压制，第三刹那，当思考智慧的结合圆满产生时，先前遍计的先前状态会以各种方式相反，并且由于其他因素，在遗忘其延续的后一刹那，遍计仍然会产生，因为境和识没有混合，所以为了消除对两个识流没有损害的怀疑，如所说：显现执着是意识的总境，刹那状态改变即是它。因此，由于境和识没有混合，衡量执着没有过失。以及，道次第没有对治，因此不是清净的，因为是粗糙的境，所以能立成立。还有，显现外境不存在，但看起来存在，依赖于执着和见二者。了解它的意识是刹那的，它也各自如实地运用。因为这样说的缘故。即使这样，争论是，思考智慧是在清净的执着之后产生，还是在不清净的执着上产生？如果像第一种情况那样，那么思考智慧将变得没有意义，因为那时没有执着。如果像第二种情况那样，那么有过失
English
So, can conceptualization arise on that? Measuring each as it is in the moment when attachment can arise, on one entity, in different ways, it will not become having two streams of consciousness, just like waving arms in a great river, or like a person looking at a mirror. Someone says, if it is negated by distinguishing whether it was previously assembled or not, then even a flawed example is meaningless, just like arms and rivers, or faces and mirrors are different things, the object to be measured and the measurer are also different things. Because this has the same meaning. If the characteristic is established on its own continuum, if admitted, then it is clear that it is like a marginal view that the path is not an object. The self-system holds that the consciousness of conceptualization, due to the cause of the initial wisdom, with various kinds of thinking wisdom that practice correctly, although it may change state for a moment, but since it has not yet relied on the path of seeing, conceptualization can still arise on it. That is, it is not that on the moment of consciousness stream, they appear simultaneously and measure, but when one appears, the other is in a dormant state, so they measure in the way that the former and the latter meet. Now, the first moment is just meeting, the second moment begins to suppress, the third moment, when the combination of thinking wisdom is fully produced, the previous state of the previous conceptualization is contrary in various ways, and due to other factors, in the next moment of forgetting its continuation, conceptualization still arises, because the object and consciousness are not mixed, so in order to eliminate the doubt that there is no harm to the two consciousness streams, as it is said: The appearance of attachment is the general object of consciousness, the momentary state change is it. Therefore, since the object and consciousness are not mixed, there is no fault in measuring attachment. And, the path does not have an antidote, so it is not pure, because it is a coarse object, so the proof is established. Also, the appearance of external objects does not exist, but it seems to exist, relying on both attachment and view. The consciousness that knows it is momentary, and it also uses it each as it is. Because it is said like this. Even so, the argument is, does thinking wisdom arise after pure attachment, or does it arise on impure attachment? If it is like the first case, then thinking wisdom will become meaningless, because there is no attachment at that time. If it is like the second case, then there is a fault.
Chinese
如果说先前存在，那并非是驳斥，而是因为后来的对治力的作用，仅仅是遇到，就与先前所要断除的显现相违背。因为是不能同时长久存在的相违，这是对实事的回答。反驳的回答是：仅仅是显现就能驱除黑暗的时候，是黑暗消失之后显现产生呢？还是在没有消失的时候产生呢？如果按照第一种情况，那么这里也是在执着消失之后产生思维。那个时候执着显现，因为不共存，思维就成了无意义的，如果这样说，那么在那里也是因为黑暗不共存，显现也成了无意义的了。如果按照第二种情况，就说在执着显现没有消失的时候产生思维。那个时候，在意识流的瞬间，因为所量和能量相同，意识流就成了具有二者的状态了，如果这样说，那么在那里也是，那个时候显现和黑暗相同，所以在一个显现的事物上，就成了具有遮蔽和非遮蔽两种状态了。即使说周遍没有成立，也是一样的。凡是所量和能量同时存在，就周遍于具有二者的意识流，就像人和人一样。如果这样说，那么在那里也是，凡是光明和黑暗同时存在，就周遍于具有两种物质成分，就像黑暗的床和看见的黑暗一样，直到这里，文殊菩萨也只能无可辩驳地走下去。即使说光明和黑暗是不同的物质，也是不能说的，因为光明并没有把黑暗单独抛弃，而且相反的是显现在光明中产生的。我是这样想的，聪明的人们，现在还要运用不被多种羊类所迷惑的道理啊！第二，消除无法衡量的疑惑：那么，因为轮回和涅槃的执着显现是不可思议的，所以无法衡量吗？现在，对于这个颠倒的器情世界执着显现本身，已经成立了共同点。对于在时间和自性上没有被劫夺的事物，就像瓶子一样，只要断除了一个增益，就能像理解一个空心的芦苇一样，理解所有种类的差别。如云：如果知道了色的如是性，就能知道一切法的要点和广说。从这里也可以知道，道次第的实有和非实有，执着的实有，三时法，在一瞬间都是世俗谛。
English
If it is said that the former exists, that is not a refutation, but because of the effect of the subsequent antidote, merely encountering it contradicts the manifestation of what is to be abandoned earlier. Because it is a contradiction of not being able to coexist for a long time, this is the answer to the reality. The answer to the rebuttal is: When mere appearance can dispel darkness, does appearance arise after the darkness disappears? Or does it arise when it has not disappeared? If according to the first case, then here too, thought arises after attachment disappears. At that time, attachment appears, and because it does not coexist, thought becomes meaningless. If you say so, then there too, because darkness does not coexist, appearance also becomes meaningless. If according to the second case, it is said that thought arises when attachment appearance has not disappeared. At that time, in the moment of the stream of consciousness, because the measurable and the energy are the same, the stream of consciousness becomes a state of having both. If you say so, then there too, at that time, appearance and darkness are the same, so on one manifest thing, it becomes a state of having both obscuration and non-obscuration. Even if it is said that pervasion is not established, it is the same. Wherever the measurable and the energy exist simultaneously, it is pervaded by the stream of consciousness having both, just like a person and a person. If you say so, then there too, wherever light and darkness exist simultaneously, it is pervaded by having two material components, just like a dark bed and the darkness seen. Up to here, Manjushri can only go on irrefutably. Even if it is said that light and darkness are different substances, it cannot be said, because light has not abandoned darkness separately, and on the contrary, it is manifested in the light. I think so, wise people, now you must still use the reason that is not confused by many kinds of sheep! Second, eliminating the doubt of immeasurability: Then, because the attachment appearances of samsara and nirvana are inconceivable, are they immeasurable? Now, for this very attachment appearance of the inverted vessel and sentient world, a common point has been established. For things that have not been robbed in time and nature, like a vase, as long as one accretion is cut off, all kinds of differences can be understood, just like understanding a hollow reed. As it is said: If you know the suchness of form, you will know the essence and extensive explanation of all dharmas. From this, it can also be known that the real and unreal of the stages of the path, the real of attachment, the three-time dharma, are all conventional truths in an instant.
Chinese
如实亲见者，为了理解一切都这样知道。如是。第四，遮遣诤论： 即使如此，分别的智慧本身是无误的无垢的吗？还是有错误的带垢的？ 如果是前者，则应成无需勤作而解脱，因为错误的过失已尽。 承认宗。 周遍是自续。 如果是后者，那么它本身是否能确定无错的意义的真理？ 如果是前者，则应成能舍弃海螺变黄的错觉之错觉。 认为识本身是错误的，周遍是自续。 为什么呢？ 如果是后者，那么心识的产生将变得无意义。 回答说： 认为是无误的无垢的。 如果应成无需勤作而解脱，那么，就依于利根者而许诺。 依于中等以下者，为了遣除宗法具足的现量，或信赖的教理的声总之后，于义总增益，则无有周遍，如是应作。 又，以执著显现作为对境的识，是以执著显现作为对境而衡量，还是衡量未作为对境的？ 如果是前者，则应成分别的智慧本身是错误的。 因为以遍计的虚假作为对境。 如同执著海螺变黄一样。 如果是后者，则应成所量上未断除增益。 因为未成为对境。 如同眼翳一样。 如是，回答是对境。 如果应成错误，则应观察： 是因为在自续中作为对境而说，还是为了成立无自性而说，还是为了成立无自性而以基作为对境而说？ 不承认第一种宗。 如果是后者，则周遍不成。 如此，所量本身由分别识的因，在第二刹那转变为不缘的智慧。 如是说： 类别，以自性之自体，境况也是，因为是因果，故为了解一。 那个本身以五事相和词语来说明。 第二，确定它的理路有二： 意义和分类。 第一是，将如实了解所证之义的方法安置于诤论处。 如是说： 理路、理路之语等，为了知晓所证为何，体性、定义、特征。