English
In the realms mentioned, since they have never been seen at any time, they are also inherently unmanifested. All that will be explained is in accordance. If the nature is determined, what fault would there be? If it is determined as one nature, then many natures would be obstructed, and it would become a fault of being used without relying on others, so it is completely wrong. These, whether actual objects or similar dharmas, are fine, but the mind of a god whose lineage has become peaceful has not been seen. The mind of a naga, which is deeply ignorant and attached to enjoyment, has not been seen. Similarly, the mind of a yaksha, who is very jealous and harms others, and the mind of a gandharva, who is very desirous, and the asura, who reviles his retinue and likes to argue, and the garuda, who is very biased, and the kinnara, who is very hateful, and the mahoraga, who is very malicious, and the human who is not content, and the non-human who has the three poisons gross and great desire, and the dimwitted animal, and the suffering preta, and the unbearable suffering of hell, etc., these will all be explained. The minds of the various different kinds of sentient beings have not been seen as the nature of their lineages. Therefore, it abides in being free from all grasping of self-nature or general conceptualization, and grasping or specific conceptualization. This is the showing of the meaning that is accomplished by the conviction of reason. Why is that? Because the actual nature of the mind of all beings is not dependent on causes and conditions, so it is the self-born wisdom of Vajrasattva. And that very wisdom, because it does not abandon all characteristics and appears impartially, is the nature of space, because there is no nature of one or many. The third part has three points: the proposition, its reason, and the measure and tenet of non-duality. The first part has two points: brief explanation and detailed explanation. The first part is explained from "Again, Lanka" to "without action." Again, the lord of Lanka asked: O Lord of Secrets! Why is the mind of sentient beings the self-born wisdom of Vajrasattva, free from causes and conditions? The Lord of Secrets said: O Lord of Lanka! The suchness of the minds of sentient beings with various names, and the suchness of Vajrasattva
Chinese
就自生智慧而言，其体性是无二且不可二分的。第二，那是怎样的呢？从“那是怎样的呢”到“唯一性”之间所阐述的，心的名相有一百零八种，这些也应以共同的方式来衡量心的体性和比喻。那又是怎样的呢？例如，对于我、他人、二者、亲属、性爱和欲望等产生贪恋之心的如实性，即是金刚萨埵的如实性。金刚萨埵的如实性，由于无杂且圆满，即是诸事物的真如。如果那是不带贪恋之心的如实性，即是金刚萨埵的如实性。金刚萨埵的如实性即是真如。如果普遍感到痛苦，嗔恨之心的如实性，当它如此显现时，心性本身超越了空性，即是金刚萨埵的如实性。金刚萨埵的如实性即是真如。那么，突然生起的嗔恨是法性吗？嗔恨的如实性与法性无别，即是法性。如果像第一种情况那样，嗔恨本身就是法性，那么众生的心和佛陀的意将变得无差别。如果说这是允许的，那么就像众生受苦一样，佛陀的意也会受苦吗？或者就像佛陀的意具有安乐的智慧或神通一样，众生的心也会同样吗？如果像第二种情况那样，嗔恨与法性无别，那么就像嗔恨普遍感到痛苦一样，法性也会普遍感到痛苦吗？或者就像法性原本未被改造而存在一样，嗔恨也原本未被改造而存在吗？现在应该这样理解，从存在的方式来衡量，突然生起的嗔恨就是法性。正如这其中所说：嗔恨无杂而痛苦，由于圆满而空无我。那无杂且圆满的，未被改造即是如实性。那么，上述的过失会产生吗？不会产生，虽然嗔恨和法性在事物上没有差别，但众生和佛陀在证悟和未证悟上有所不同。
English
As for the self-originated wisdom, its essence is non-dual and cannot be made dual. Secondly, what is that like? From "What is that like?" to "uniqueness" is explained, the terms for mind are one hundred and eight, and these should also be measured in a common way to illustrate the nature and metaphors of the mind. What is that like? For example, the suchness of the mind that is attached to self, others, both, relatives, sexual love, and desire is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva, because it is unmixed and complete, is the suchness of all things. If that is the suchness of the mind without attachment, it is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness. If one universally feels tormented, the suchness of the mind of hatred, when it appears as such, the nature of mind itself transcends emptiness, it is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness. So, is the sudden arising of hatred the nature of reality? The suchness of hatred is inseparable from the nature of reality, which is the nature of reality. If, as in the first case, hatred itself is the nature of reality, then the mind of sentient beings and the mind of the Buddhas will become indistinguishable. If it is said that this is permissible, then just as sentient beings suffer, will the mind of the Buddhas also suffer? Or, just as the mind of the Buddhas possesses the wisdom of bliss or clairvoyance, will the minds of sentient beings also be the same? If, as in the second case, hatred and the nature of reality are inseparable, then just as hatred universally feels tormented, will the nature of reality also universally feel tormented? Or, just as the nature of reality exists without being transformed, will hatred also exist without being transformed? Now it should be understood in this way, measuring from the way it exists, the sudden arising of hatred is the nature of reality. As it is said in this itself: Hatred is unmixed and painful, empty and selfless due to completeness. That which is unmixed and complete, untransformed, is suchness itself. So, will the above faults arise? It will not arise, although hatred and the nature of reality are not different in things, sentient beings and Buddhas are different in realization and non-realization.
Chinese
这是由于地界的因缘而产生的差别。例如，樟脑本身无所谓是药还是毒，但由于疾病的冷热等因缘，其作用效果则有好有坏。同样，嗔恨和法性在本体上没有差别，但法性具有止息痛苦的作用，而嗔恨的虚妄认知中却没有止息痛苦的作用。法性原本就是不加改造而自然存在的，而嗔恨却不是这样，嗔恨是突然产生的。因此，嗔恨的本性未被改造，它本身就是法性，更不用说其他了。这可以解释五毒等一切上下法。这是烦恼即是法性的道理。现在要问，如何将烦恼转化为道用呢？有五种考察方式：是直接拿来嗔恨本身呢？还是舍弃嗔恨，取其对治法，比如慈爱呢？还是以理智分析嗔恨，从而认识到它的无自性呢？还是在嗔恨生起后，当它止息时，随后生起一种觉知，认为“现在的嗔恨本身就是法性”呢？或者说，嗔恨的心和法性是各自独立存在的吗？如果是直接拿来嗔恨本身作为道用，就像弑父之子一样，嗔恨越大，解脱的过失就越大。如果舍弃嗔恨，取其对治法作为道用，那就不是将嗔恨转化为道用，而是与小乘没有区别。如果以理智分析嗔恨，从而认识到它的无自性，并将其作为道用，那也不是将嗔恨转化为道用，而是将空性作为道用，这与中观派没有区别。如果嗔恨止息后，取随后的觉知作为道用，那么新的智慧就会产生，但因为嗔恨已经止息，所以这不是将嗔恨转化为道用。如果认为在一个人的相续中，嗔恨和法性是各自独立存在的，那么“众生不会同时拥有两种心续”这句话就否定了这种观点。如果真的同时拥有两种心续，那么即使一个充满嗔恨的人证悟了见地，也不会获得佛果，因为基础是不同的。现在应该这样理解：对于嗔恨生起的那一刻，不要舍弃它，而是认识到显现和空性无二无别，并将其转化为道用。正如《四十四颂》中所说：“由见彼性之差别，无论采取何种实际行为，都不会成为束缚，而是成为解脱之方便。”
English
This is due to the difference caused by the condition of the ground. For example, camphor itself is neither medicine nor poison, but due to the conditions of hot and cold diseases, its effects are different. Similarly, although anger and Dharma-nature are not different in essence, Dharma-nature has the function of pacifying suffering, while the deluded cognition of anger does not have the function of pacifying suffering. Dharma-nature originally exists naturally without being modified, but anger is not like that; anger arises suddenly. Therefore, the unadulterated suchness of anger is itself Dharma-nature, let alone anything else. This can explain all the upper and lower dharmas, such as the five poisons. This is the way in which afflictions are Dharma-nature. Now, how to transform afflictions into the path? There are five ways to examine: Is it to take anger itself? Or to abandon anger and take its antidote, such as loving-kindness? Or to analyze anger with reason, thereby recognizing its lack of self-nature? Or after anger arises, when it ceases, to subsequently generate an awareness that "the present anger itself is Dharma-nature"? Or are the mind of anger and Dharma-nature existing separately? If one directly takes anger itself as the path, like the son who killed his father, the greater the anger, the greater the fault of liberation. If one abandons anger and takes its antidote as the path, then it is not transforming anger into the path, but is no different from the Hinayana. If one analyzes anger with reason, thereby recognizing its lack of self-nature, and takes it as the path, then it is not transforming anger into the path, but is taking emptiness as the path, which is no different from the Madhyamaka. If after anger ceases, one takes the subsequent awareness as the path, then new wisdom will arise, but because anger has ceased, it is not transforming anger into the path. If one thinks that in the continuum of a person, anger and Dharma-nature exist separately, then the statement "sentient beings do not hold two mind-streams simultaneously" negates this view. If one really holds two mind-streams simultaneously, then even if a person full of anger realizes the view, he will not attain the fruit of Buddhahood, because the basis is different. Now, one should understand it this way: For the moment when anger arises, do not abandon it, but recognize that appearance and emptiness are non-dual, and transform it into the path. As it is said in the Forty-Four Verses: "By the distinction of seeing that nature, whatever actual behavior is adopted, it will not become a bondage, but will become a means of liberation."
Chinese
那里是修习道的殊胜之处。第二十六品中说：将痛苦转为菩提道，道即是自生智慧的阐释。幻化广大的经中说：烦恼自身及普遍的指示，若能不错误地理解其特征，就能转为清净之道。就像弑父之子无法获得解脱，因为他没有将嗔恨认知为法性，并且执着于一边。因此，要将烦恼认知为法性并将其转化为道。应如是理解一切。凡是利益他人的慈爱之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是没有思虑的愚痴之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是分别觉知一切的大智慧之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是未能确定而心存二念的怀疑之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是如教典般断除增益并最终确定的坚定之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是不明了而对法产生怀疑的黑暗之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是因明了而无怀疑地了知的光明之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是对任何事物都傲慢自大的我慢之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真如本身。凡是贬低他人而怀疑自己低劣的嫉妒之心的真如，即是金刚萨埵的真如。金刚萨埵的真如即是真
English
There, the place of excellent practice of the path. And in the twenty-sixth chapter, it says: Suffering is made into the path of enlightenment. The path itself explains self-arisen wisdom. And in the expanded illusion, it says: Afflictions, both self and generally shown, if one understands the characteristics without error, it will become a path of complete purification. Like a son who kills his father, he will not be liberated, because he does not recognize hatred as the nature of reality, and because he clings to one side. Therefore, recognize afflictions as the nature of reality and take them as the path. Thus, one should understand how to apply it to everything. Whatever benefits others, the suchness of the mind of loving-kindness, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever is without thought or analysis, the suchness of the mind of ignorance, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever separately cognizes and distinguishes everything, the suchness of the great wisdom mind, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever engages in two minds without finding certainty, the suchness of the mind of doubt, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever cuts through imputations and arrives at a conclusion according to the teachings, the suchness of the mind of certainty, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever is unclear and doubts the Dharma, the suchness of the mind of darkness, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever knows without doubt because of clarity, the suchness of the mind of light, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever stubbornly insists on anything, the suchness of the mind of pride, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is suchness itself. Whatever belittles others and suspects oneself of being inferior, the suchness of the mind of jealousy, is the suchness of Vajrasattva. The suchness of Vajrasattva is such