English
Those who do not go in vain, just as the color of coal cannot turn white. The key point of various spontaneously perfect things is that for things that do not agree with the cause itself, other fruits will arise. What is the reason for that? Because they are different, so it is impossible to know the measure of each action. Or, because the fruit is spontaneously perfect, it is not like that. After asking this, similarly, because the cause is spontaneously perfect, it is not the fruit; if the fruit is accomplished, it is not the cause; if asked whether there is a mutual relationship between cause and effect, is it through effort or is it there without effort? If it is there through effort, then there is no harm to being a fruit, because the fruit will return to being the cause. If asked what it returns to, it is like the fruit turning into the cause of seeds and sprouts through effort. Even if it is there without effort, it is impossible to avoid the fault of the fruit being interrupted. That is to say, if no effort is made on the cause, the fruit will not ripen, so it is impossible to avoid the fault of cause and effect being one. If you want to do whatever you want, then there is no need for sentient beings to make efforts through meditation and so on. Therefore, this basis called "spontaneous" is flawed. Why is it flawed? Because each person's wishes will naturally appear. If you think that accomplishment is spontaneously perfect, then there are two investigations: is it constantly accomplished, or is it accomplished even if it is impermanent? If it is constant, is it accomplished from the past, future, or present? If it is accomplished from the past, then the past has stopped and is no longer an object of experience, so why is it accomplished? If you say that it is accomplished even when it stops, then how do you know? Because there is no knower, it is impossible to know the accomplishment. Because the reason for the future cannot be clearly known, knowing the accomplishment is the knower. If you say that it is accomplished in the present, then the word of constancy will be lost, because it contradicts the three times. If you say that it is accomplished in all three times, then the present is clear, because you know the before and after. If you say that the before and after are not true, then the vow of constancy will also be lost, and there will be the fault of falling into annihilation. If you say that it is accomplished in impermanence, then is impermanence accomplished from being born, or is it accomplished even without being born? If it is accomplished after being born, is it accomplished after being born from itself, or is it accomplished after being born from another? If it is accomplished after being born from itself, then whether itself is constant or impermanent is the same as before. Or, is it born from its own existence, or from non-existence? If it is accomplished after being born from existence, then will there be change? Is there even without change?
Chinese
如果存在变化，则会违背已成立的誓言；如果不变化，则会出现并非任运自成的过失。如果从无自性中产生而成立，则不合理。例如，天空也会过度地产生花朵等事物的实体，这个过失无法避免。同样，对于石女也会出现生育孩子等的过失。如果认为从他者产生而成立，那么是从自他产生，还是他者产生他者？如果是前者，因为他者由自性产生而成立，所以与从他者产生相违背。如果是他者产生他者，则会出现无穷无尽的过失。例如，火中生水，人中生牛，然后成立为形体等，这在知识上是不可能的。如果未产生也成立，则会被“成立”这个词本身所否定，天空也应该有成立之物。如果认为天空虽然未产生，但也成立，则会被它没有颜色和形状所否定。或者，因为未产生的事物不适用“成立”这个词。因此，对于成立而言，会陷入因果断灭的过失，并且难以避免并非任运自成的过失。因此，如此认为只是表面上的成立，认为成立是任运自成的，这是轮回中的大圆满，并非真正的。如果认为多样性是任运自成，则有两种考察：是认为显现的多样性是任运自成，还是认为即使不是显现也如此认为？如果是前者，则不是大圆满，与唯识宗认为多样性非二元没有区别。如果说在任运自成的方面有区别，那么，唯识宗认为显现为多样性的心识，其本质是真实的，与认为多样性是任运自成，这两者没有区别。如果认为显现为多样性的显现本身就是任运自成，那么，即使显现为多样性，除了心性之外没有其他独立的部分，因此，认为心性本身是真实的，与此也没有任何区别。如果认为多样性不是任运自成，那么承认任运自成也没有损害。这是大圆满增益宗的观点，实际上与承认无决定的观点没有区别，辩驳也与此相同。还有，大圆满聚集
English
If there is change, the established vow is broken. If there is no change, the fault of not being spontaneously accomplished arises. If it is established by arising from no self-nature, it is unreasonable. For example, the sky would also excessively produce the substance of things such as flowers, and this fault cannot be avoided. Similarly, for a barren woman, the fault of giving birth to children, etc., would also occur. If it is argued that it is established by arising from another, does it arise from self and other, or does another arise from another? According to the former, since the other is established by arising from self, it contradicts arising from other. If another arises from another, there would be the fault of endlessness. For example, water arising from fire, and cattle arising from humans, and then being established as form, etc., would occur, which is impossible in knowledge. If it is established even without arising, it is negated by the word "established" itself, and there should also be something established in the sky. If it is argued that the sky, although not arisen, is established, it is negated by the fact that it has no color or shape. Or, because the word "established" does not apply to what has not arisen. Therefore, for establishment, there is the fault of the annihilation of cause and effect, and it is difficult to avoid the fault of not being spontaneously accomplished. Therefore, to think in this way is only a superficial establishment. To think of establishment as spontaneous accomplishment is the Great Perfection of samsara, which is not genuine. If one thinks of diversity as spontaneous accomplishment, there are two examinations: Does one think of the appearances of diversity as spontaneous accomplishment, or does one think so even if it is not an appearance? According to the former, it is not Great Perfection, and there is no difference from the Mind-Only school, which says that diversity is non-dual. If there is a difference in terms of spontaneous accomplishment, then there is no difference between saying that the mind, which appears as diverse in the Mind-Only school, is true in the nature of one mind, and saying that diversity is spontaneously accomplished. If it is argued that the appearance that appears as diverse is itself spontaneously accomplished, then even though it appears as diverse, there is no separate part other than the nature of mind, so there is no difference from saying that the nature of mind itself is true. If one does not think of diversity as spontaneously accomplished, then there is no harm in admitting spontaneous accomplishment. This is the view of the Great Perfection elaboration school, which in reality is no different from the view of admitting indeterminacy, and the refutation is the same. Furthermore, the Great Perfection gathering
Chinese
对于那些认为自生是与共同显现一致的人来说，你的共同显现是：与自己一致时，是从自己的显现中自生吗？还是显现为与他人一致而自生？如果如前者所说，即使是自生，这种观点也会崩溃，因为除了自己之外，其他事物不是自生的。如果是显现为与他人一致而自生，例如，对于患有黄眼病的人来说，就像将白色的海螺看成黄色一样，其他人的看法也应该如此，但这不可能。如果说是自己和他人共同显现为自生，那么名声会破灭，因为在自己看来，他人的观点会崩溃，而显现为与他人一致，则会被他人和其他人所破灭。同样，因为是自己所以不是他人，因为是他人所以不是自己的过失难以避免。此外，那些声称有大圆满“如意宝”的人，认为自生存在于思想中。是感官的对象通过思想而实现，还是即使不是感官的对象也能实现？如果是感官的对象，则不需要思考，因为已经显而易见地实现了；如果不是感官的对象，又如何通过思考来实现？就像心念的流动是不同的，基础也会变成不同的过失。即使认为这也是自生的，那也不是正确的。当认为自生存在时，因为没有看到原因，所以错误的意识也无处可去。此外，那些声称大圆满具有因果关系的人，对于那些认为因果是自生的人，已经在前面驳斥过了。此外，那些声称大圆满是执着于一边的，认为自生存在于一个方向的体系。这被称为非常极端的名声的自生。那个方向是在存在的一方实现，还是在不存在的一方实现？如果如前者所说，是恒常存在还是无常存在？如果是恒常，那么过去、未来和现在的时间会相互矛盾，因此存在无法成立。如果是无常存在，那么自生的誓言就会崩溃。此外，那些声称大圆满具有障碍的人，认为因缘是自生的体系。是因产生缘而认为是自生，还是缘产生因？如果如前者所说，因是常住的，而缘是偶然的，两者是矛盾的，因此不会产生。如果如后者所说，那么后面的缘已经完成了前面的因，不需要产生，这是矛盾的。因缘聚集在一起而自生
English
For those who say that self-origination is consistent with co-emergence, your co-emergence is: When it is consistent with oneself, does it self-originate from one's own appearance? Or does it self-originate by appearing to be consistent with others? If it is as the former, even if it is self-originated, this view will collapse, because other things besides oneself are not self-originated. If it self-originates by appearing to be consistent with others, for example, for a person with yellow eye disease, just as a white conch is seen as yellow, others' views should also be like that, but that is impossible. If it is said that both oneself and others co-emerge as self-originated, then fame will be ruined, because in one's own view, others' views will collapse, and appearing to be consistent with others will be ruined by others and others. Similarly, because it is oneself, it is not others, and because it is others, it is not oneself, the fault is difficult to avoid. Furthermore, those who claim to have the Great Perfection "Wish-Fulfilling Jewel" believe that self-origination exists in thought. Is the object of the senses realized through thought, or can it be realized even if it is not an object of the senses? If it is an object of the senses, then there is no need to think, because it has already been obviously realized; if it is not an object of the senses, how can it be realized through thought? Just as the flow of thoughts is different, the basis will also become a fault of being different. Even if it is thought that this is also self-originated, that is not correct. When it is thought that self-origination exists, because the reason is not seen, the mistaken consciousness has nowhere to go. Furthermore, those who claim that the Great Perfection has a causal relationship, for those who believe that cause and effect are self-originated, have already been refuted above. Furthermore, those who claim that the Great Perfection is attached to one side, believe that self-origination exists in a system of one direction. This is called the self-origination of extremely extreme fame. Is that direction realized on the side of existence, or is it realized on the side of non-existence? If it is as the former, is it constantly existing or impermanently existing? If it is constant, then the past, future, and present times will contradict each other, so existence cannot be established. If it is impermanently existing, then the vow of self-origination will collapse. Furthermore, those who claim that the Great Perfection has obstacles, believe that conditions are a self-originated system. Is it that the cause produces the condition and it is considered self-originated, or does the condition produce the cause? If it is as the former, the cause is permanent, and the condition is accidental, the two are contradictory, so it will not arise. If it is as the latter, then the later condition has already completed the previous cause, and there is no need to produce it, which is contradictory. The cause and condition gather together and self-originate