English
Therefore, one should look elsewhere for the unelaborated place. The first of the two is: Refuting objections: The sutra says, "In a moment of the wisdom of knowledge, do future and past dharmas appear or not appear?" If they do not appear, then, "The single wisdom of knowledge, possesses the characteristic of pervading all knowable realms." This contradicts that, because it will not become the knower of the three times. If they do appear, then because they manifestly know the nonexistent dharmas that have ceased and have not arisen, they will become wrong knowledge that is confused about the object of apprehension. If you say that, it is not so. Because it knows that the past has already happened, the future can happen, and the present has arisen and has not ceased, there is no fault. This is the oral instruction of another wise lama. Furthermore, the second of all is: Does the knowing Buddha know the streams of those who have not cultivated the path or not know? If it is like the second case, then all sentient beings should be liberated effortlessly. If it is like the first case, then omniscience is diminished. If it is like the first case, the answer is: It is said that he knows all possible existences that are worthy of being known. Then, does he know whether one will be liberated without practicing dharma or not know? He does not know. If you say that it follows that he is not omniscient, then liberation without practicing dharma is not reasonable or possible. If he does not become the knower of what is reasonable and possible, then what is it? Because pervasion does not exist, it is not established. The head and tail are connected: Just so, does the divine craftsman Vishvakarman know all the crafts of the world? If he knows, then does he know the craft knowledge that does not depend on conditions or not know? If it is like the first case, it is merely by the gathering of causes. My desired object will be accomplished. Because he knows without depending on conditions. If he does not know, then it follows that he does not know all the crafts. It should be said so. Someone says, "If the conditions do not gather, how will the craft come about?" He knows all the crafts that gather causes and conditions. If you say that, then here, how will he know if he has not practiced dharma at all? If he practices dharma, then according to the order of sharpness and dullness of the faculties, he knows that liberation will be attained sooner or later. It should be said so. The fruit of performing the benefit of others has three aspects: the way of looking at the beings to be tamed with compassion, the way of generating compassion after looking, and the way of performing the benefit of others after generating it. The first has three aspects: the Vaibhashika school believes that after the continuity of wisdom is cut off, they will not look, and the continuous Svātantrika
Chinese
现在想要观察的宗派，是远离了断灭边，想要在无所事事、自然明了的状态中观察的宗派。首先分为两部分：确立所欲求的和驳斥不欲求的。第一部分是：一般而言，佛有二种：观察的和体性的。这里体性的就是法身，例如，当所焚烧的木柴耗尽时，能焚烧的火焰之流也不存在一样，当舍弃了所有粗细的障碍之后，舍弃对治的智慧也寂灭于法界中，因为所依和能依的智慧也断绝了，所以没有能见和所见。观察的色身是：先前积累的福德资粮不间断的果报，或者仅仅是如梦般的显现，仅仅是对所化众生的显现。如是说：真实的佛是法身，虽然具有不分别，但以愿力的力量，二种色身遍布所化众生的刹土。如是说。对此进行驳斥：难道智慧自己返回而断绝了吗？还是被其他的对治所断绝？如果是前者也不合理，因为舍弃了障碍的仅仅是觉性之体，也是无有穷尽地存在的缘故。如果说在佛的境界中，连觉性之体也没有，也是不能说的，如果那样，你们所说的佛就成了无情物了。如果是后者也不合理，因为不可能有像金刚喻定一样的对治之法。如果理由不成立，那么对治也将变成无穷无尽。像这样恶劣的宗派，却称之为对佛的功德的尊敬，并且修道的努力也将变得毫无意义。经藏中也汇集了，如是说：如果没有智慧，菩提就不会增长也不会减少，就像大海一样的佛法也将不复存在。又说：智慧就是如来，因为具有所证之法和与之相应的。又说：文殊幻网，智慧和智慧有很大的差别，具有智慧就能知晓有和无。另外，《密集》中说：如来知晓诸法的真实意义，从而为众生宣说佛法。等等众多的经文中都有记载。
English
Now, the school that wishes to observe is the one that is free from the extreme of annihilation, wishing to observe in a state of effortless, natural clarity. First, there are two parts: establishing what is desired and refuting what is not desired. The first part is: generally speaking, there are two kinds of Buddhas: the contemplated and the essential. Here, the essential is the Dharmakaya, for example, just as when the wood to be burned is exhausted, the stream of fire that can burn also does not exist, after abandoning all gross and subtle obscurations, the wisdom of abandoning the antidote also subsides into the Dharmadhatu, because the wisdom of the dependent and the depended upon is also cut off, so there is no seer and nothing to be seen. The contemplated Rupakaya is: the uninterrupted result of the accumulation of merit in the past, or merely a dream-like manifestation, merely an appearance to those to be tamed. As it is said: The real Buddha is the Dharmakaya, although it has no conceptualization, but by the power of aspiration, the two Rupakayas pervade the realms of those to be tamed. So it is said. The refutation of this is: Does wisdom itself return and cease? Or is it cut off by another antidote? If it is the former, it is also unreasonable, because the mere essence of awareness that has abandoned obscurations also exists without end. If you say that even the essence of awareness does not exist in the state of Buddhahood, it cannot be said, because if that were the case, the Buddha you speak of would become an inanimate object. If it is the latter, it is also not the case, because there cannot be another antidote-like Vajra Samadhi. If the reason is not established, then the antidote will also become endless. Such a bad philosophical view is called respect for the qualities of the Buddha, and the effort of the path will also become meaningless. The Sutra Pitaka also gathers, as it is said: If there is no wisdom, Bodhi will not increase or decrease, and the Buddhadharma, like the ocean, will also cease to exist. And again: Wisdom is the Tathagata, because it has the Dharma to be attained and corresponds to it. And again: Manjushri Net, wisdom and wisdom have great differences, with wisdom one can know existence and non-existence. In addition, the Guhyasamaja says: The Tathagatas know the true meaning of all dharmas, and thus teach the Dharma to sentient beings. And so on, many sutras are recorded.
Chinese
第二，关于具有相续的情况也有两种：如果承认，则进行确立；驳斥它。第一种观点是：佛陀如金刚般，在断除了所有障碍之后，具有智慧的相续。因为佛陀以智慧了知世俗的对境和有境，所以先前以断绝相续的教证来成立的观点是错误的。这也不合理，因为佛陀的智慧本身是法，应该成为错乱的，因为它将世俗作为对境，就像凡夫一样。作为对该观点的回应，一些学者说，虽然仅仅显现作为对境，但不执著于对境，因此不会变成错乱，所以周遍不成立。这种说法也不合理，因为那样的话，佛陀的智慧会成为只断除了一部分烦恼，因为虽然断除了执著对境的邪见，但没有断除显现对境的邪见。正如经部经典中所说：“真正的佛陀法身，没有混合，也没有显现。”又说：“因为殊胜的智慧是无我的，所以因为没有显现，所以没有看见。”此外，例如，就像死人无法行走一样，因此称其为寂灭。诸如此类的教证中并没有提及。自己的观点是，以远离智慧相续断绝与否的增益的自性方式，以显现空性无别的方式来观察。正如所说：“心之精髓，空性无二，原始智慧，自性本觉。无有能取所取，忆念自在转变。”对于此的辩驳是：即使如此，佛陀是以慈悲作为对境来观察，还是不以慈悲作为对境来观察？还是以无别的方式来观察？如果是第一种情况，那么佛陀就变成了具有能取所取的，因为区分了对境和有境。如果承认，那么就变成了不清净的相续，因为有能取所取，就像心一样。如果是不以对境来观察，那么眼睛也应该能听到声音，因为即使不以对境来观察也能看见。如果承认，那就太明显了。此外，佛陀本身也应该变成错乱的，因为看见了不存在的事物，就像在虚空中看见头发的乱影一样。以无别的方式来观察也是不合理的，因为能见和所见是相违的。如果这样说，回答是，观点是不同的，以前的一些学者说
English
Secondly, regarding the one with continuity, there are also two: if asserted, then establishing it; and refuting it. The first is: the Buddha, like a vajra, in the aftermath of abandoning all obscurations, has a continuous stream of wisdom. Because the Buddha sees the conventional realm and the one possessing it with wisdom, therefore the view established by the scripture that previously blocked the continuity is wrong. This is also not logical, because the Buddha's wisdom itself is the Dharma, it should become deluded, because it takes the conventional as its object, just like ordinary beings. As a response to that view, some scholars say that even though mere appearance is taken as the object, it is not apprehended as the object, therefore it does not become deluded, so the pervasion is not established. This statement is also not reasonable, because in that case, the Buddha's wisdom would become only partially abandoned, because although the wrong view of being deluded by the object of attachment is abandoned, the wrong view of being deluded by the object of appearance is not abandoned. As it is said in the Sutra scripture: "The true Buddha Dharmakaya, is unmixed and without appearance." And also: "Because the supreme wisdom is selfless, therefore because there is no appearance, it is not seen." Furthermore, for example, just as a dead person cannot walk, therefore it is said to be nirvana. Such scriptures are not present. One's own view is that one sees the appearance and emptiness as inseparable in the manner of the nature of being free from the imputation of whether the wisdom stream is cut off or not. As it is said: "The essence, emptiness, without one, primordial wisdom, self-awareness mind. Without object and subject, memory transforms freely." The refutation of the debate on this is: even so, does the Buddha see with compassion as the object, or does he see without it? Or does he see in an undifferentiated way? If it is the first case, then the Buddha becomes one with grasper and grasped, because the object and the one possessing it are distinguished. If you accept that, then it becomes an impure continuum, because there is grasper and grasped, just like the mind. If it is not seeing with the object, then the eyes should also hear sounds, because even without the object, it sees. If you accept that, then it is obvious. Furthermore, the Buddha himself should become deluded, because he sees what does not exist, just like seeing tangled hair in the sky. Seeing in an undifferentiated way is also unreasonable, because the seen and the seer are contradictory. If you say that, the answer is that the views are different, some previous scholars say
Chinese
拉格纳说：不要指责说，视为所缘而未舍弃，或者未视为所缘，而是以无有差别的方式看待所缘和能依。如果以无有差别的方式看待，能见和所见是合理的。不希望将能见和所见视为他体，因为完全通达无有差别，那才是生起大悲，因为是一切利益的基础。如是说：如果证悟佛与有情无二无别，那才称为生起大悲。那么，大悲和智慧有什么区别呢？以无有差别的方式完全通达是智慧，而那两者本身就是一切利益的基础，实际上就是大悲。还有一些人说，即使大悲的自性没有生者和所生，但在所化众生的层面显现并不矛盾，就像面容和镜子一样。拉杰钦·雅日波说：有广阔的理解和狭隘的理解两种。第一种是，视为所缘而看，不视为所缘也看，也以无有差别的方式看。如果按照第一种方式，佛不会变成具有能取和所取吗？不会变成，因为对于视为所缘的事物没有偏颇。如是说：导师知晓无依无靠的世间，以大悲怜悯。狭隘理解的说法与上述相同。所见之境是，以胜义谛智慧的如实性，如虚空般看待；以世俗谛智慧，将一切法不混杂地如莲花瓣般看待；以圆满智慧，将显空无二如水月般看待。还有，是体验有情的痛苦后看，还是不体验而看？如果按照第二种方式，眼睛也能听到声音了。如果按照第一种方式，佛和有情会变得没有差别。如果这样说，回答是，有些人说，以不执著名称的方式看，因此，体验不是全知，不执著则表明不会变得没有差别。我的上师说：以不执著体验的方式看，例如，在一个具有神通的人面前，一个人因睡眠的错觉而痛苦，神通者