Chinese
此外，任运自成是生灭法，因为是由因缘所生。譬如陶工的轮子。还有，大圆满认为无所希求，认为非有非空是任运自成。这种观点实际上是自相矛盾的。当说安住于空性时，实际上已经遮止了有；同样，当说安住于有的时候，实际上已经遮止了空。如果非有非空都不接受，那么任运自成的说法就落空了。因为不承认有，所以认为是空；不承认空，所以认为是有；有和空都不承认，所以不是成立，因此自己的观点就落空了。这八种任运自成的观点，也只是大概而言，详细来说有七万种观点。因此，任运自成的观点，能够符合瑜伽士的意义本质吗？或者不能符合呢？导师普贤王如来以请教的方式问道：我，太阳集合的光芒，是否如您先前所说？为了在后世破除任运自成恶见的观点，进行了辩论。导师回答说：大菩萨，你所理解的任运自成是怎样的？要知道，这个所谓的任运自成，不是修持的正真本质。知道这个有什么必要呢？因为有不陷入恶见的必要，所以暂时来说很重要。如是宣说，对于大圆满中认为任何未成立之法为任运自成的观点，以辩论问答的方式进行了驳斥。现在，为了驳斥第四种不确定的观点，以辩论问答的方式进行阐述。以太阳集合的菩提心等来阐述。太阳集合的菩提心，向导师普贤王如来请教说：啊！啊！导师普贤王如来，导师您在先前总结的时候所说的，确定的处所。
English
Furthermore, spontaneous presence is subject to arising and ceasing, because it is produced by causes and conditions. For example, like a potter's wheel. Also, the Great Perfection says that there is nothing to be desired, and considers non-existence and non-emptiness to be spontaneously present. This view is actually self-contradictory. When it is said to abide in emptiness, existence is actually prevented; similarly, when it is said to abide in existence, emptiness is actually prevented. If neither existence nor emptiness is accepted, then the statement of spontaneous presence is in vain. Because existence is not admitted, it is considered emptiness; because emptiness is not admitted, it is considered existence; neither existence nor emptiness is admitted, so it is not established, therefore one's own view is in vain. These eight views of spontaneous presence are only general, and in detail there are seventy thousand views. Therefore, can the view of spontaneous presence conform to the essential meaning of a yogi? Or can it not conform? The teacher Kuntuzangpo asked in the manner of inquiring: I, the rays of the sun's collection, as you said before? In order to refute the view of the evil view of spontaneous presence in later generations, a debate was conducted. The teacher replied: Great Bodhisattva, what is your understanding of spontaneous presence? Know that this so-called spontaneous presence is not the true essence of practice. What is the need to know this? Because there is a need not to fall into evil views, so it is important for the time being. Thus, it was declared that the view of considering any unestablished dharma as spontaneously present in the Great Perfection was refuted by means of debate and questions and answers. Now, in order to refute the fourth uncertain view, it is explained by means of debate and questions and answers. It is explained by the Bodhicitta of the Sun's Collection, etc. The Bodhicitta of the Sun's Collection asked the teacher Kuntuzangpo: Ah! Ah! Teacher Kuntuzangpo, the definite place that you, the teacher, said in the previous summary.
Chinese
因此，我认为这个基础本身是无法成立的。我以这种方式理解思维的层次，这是以请教集结者（即佛陀）的方式提问，意在寻求辩驳的答案。这里有两种方式来考察普遍认为的不确定性：所谓的不确定性，是指认为它是不确定会改变，还是认为它不确定是否会改变？如果认为它会改变，那是事物会改变，还是自性会改变？如果认为事物会改变，那是认为事物的名称是不确定的，还是认为事物的本质是不确定的？如果认为名称是不确定的，那就否定了世俗的命名。因为命名是错误的，所以名称是不确定的。如果说把火叫做水，但却不能吃，那是因为火不具备水的特性，所以不能用水来煮或烧，这是矛盾的。如果说特性是不确定的，所以可以用水来烧，那又如何呢？火的作用是水来做，还是不做？如果火被确定为水，那不确定性就消失了。如果说最初认为的火也是不确定的，那水本身就是水，这是自相矛盾。因此，名称和本质两者都不确定是不能成立的。本质与作用相矛盾，因为做了就不能阻止无常，就像无常不能阻止做一样。自性不确定是不合理的，例如，从虚空中显现出云等各种自性，但它们不是真实的，因此没有任何东西能遮蔽虚空本身的性质。这样认为，就是背离了究竟的法性，而执着于世俗的真理。如果不确定它是否会改变，那就因为自己的主张被破坏而无法成立。或者，如果本质是不确定的，那是究竟的法性吗？如果是真实的法，那本质会改变，法就没有必要了。如果不是，那就不合理，就像世间的业和果报的循环一样。如果说真实的法性是不确定的，那从世间的角度来看是不合理的，还是从真实的角度来看是不合理的？如果从世间的角度来看是不合理的，那世间有各种各样的行为和作用，所以没有否定的意义。如果从真实的角度来看是不合理的，那就是因为会改变而并非真实，如果像是真实，那它就不是不确定的。如果说通过经文知道真实是不确定的，说通过“像这样是不确定的”来了解，那经文的
English
Therefore, I understand that this basis itself cannot be established. I understand the levels of mind in this way, which is asking in the manner of consulting the collector (i.e., the Buddha), intending to seek answers to refutations. Here are two ways to examine the general assumption of uncertainty: Does this so-called uncertainty mean that it is uncertain whether it will change, or does it mean that it is uncertain whether it will not change? If it is assumed that it will change, will the entity change, or will the nature change? If it is assumed that the entity will change, is it assumed that the name of the entity is uncertain, or is it assumed that the essence is uncertain? If it is assumed that the name is uncertain, then worldly designation is refuted. Because designation is mistaken, the name is uncertain. If one says that fire is called water but cannot be eaten, it is contradictory because fire does not have the characteristics of water, so it cannot be cooked or burned with water. If one says that the characteristics are uncertain, so water can be used to burn, then what? Does water perform the function of fire, or does it not? If fire is determined to be water, then uncertainty is eliminated. If one says that the initially assumed fire is also uncertain, then water itself is water, which is self-contradictory. Therefore, it is not possible for both name and essence to be uncertain. Essence contradicts action, because doing cannot prevent impermanence, just as impermanence cannot prevent doing. The uncertainty of nature is unreasonable. For example, various natures such as clouds appear from the sky, but they are not real, so nothing can obscure the nature of the sky itself. To assume this is to turn one's back on the ultimate Dharma nature and cling to conventional truth. If it is uncertain whether it will not change, then it cannot be established because one's own assertion is undermined. Or, if the essence is uncertain, is it the ultimate Dharma nature or not? If it is the true Dharma, then the essence will change, and the Dharma will become unnecessary. If it is not, then it is unreasonable, like the cycle of actions and results in the world. If one says that the true Dharma nature is uncertain, is it unreasonable from the perspective of the world, or is it unreasonable from the perspective of truth itself? If it is unreasonable from the perspective of the world, then there are various actions and functions in the world, so there is no point in denying it. If it is unreasonable from the perspective of truth itself, then it is not true because it changes, and if it seems true, then it is not uncertain. If one says that the uncertainty of truth is known through scripture, saying that it is understood through "like this is uncertain," then the
Chinese
就像蠢人一样，没有想法。又在其中说到：不改变而正直地存在。这是它的意思。又，依靠名来寻找意义，还是依靠意义来寻找？如果依靠名来寻找，比如语言不通的情况数不胜数，菜的名字也数不胜数，味道也会因此而各异。就像名字各异，味道却只有一个一样，不确定意义是不可行的。如果依靠意义来寻找，就像觉悟者精通续部一样，也会精通一切众生。因为这二者都不可能，所以，暂时把不是马牛的东西执着为马牛。因为在错乱的意识中不存在，所以，要么是交替的结果，要么就像火流向水一样。就像把火执着为水的意识一样，如果一定要确定名字，要么就是具有相反的特征。因此，说火是水是不确定的。如果水本身是什么，如果你的火被反转，就会确定为水，而像其他人一样低头和之前一样。如果那本身也不确定，就会变得没有尽头，就像从青稞中生出豌豆，从豌豆中生出荞麦一样。如果说这是随意的，难道是在否定世俗的成立吗？因为自己的不确定性存在于自身，所以和确定的意愿没有任何区别。如果那也是不确定的，就像自生的大圆满一样，在大圆满中说有分别的宗派，按照认为显现是不确定的观点，那个显现是不确定为常，还是不确定为无常？因为三时前后不共存，所以常是相违的，不确定的誓言也破损了。如果不确定为无常，难道仅仅显现不确定为无常吗？从显现的转变中确定为无常。如果像之前的显现一样，仅仅显现是无常且不确定的，那么法性也是无常且不确定的。因此，无法找到与意义的错乱的区别。如果说显现是不确定的，因为事物的季节，时间和颜色，植物等等会发生变化，所以可以知道。这样说和之前的事物没有区别。如果说从显现的转变来说，因为和之前承诺的相违背，所以无法成立。如果认为有独立于显现的法性，就像有法和转变是不同的，也无法避免法性也会变得不同的过失。
English
Like a fool, without any thoughts. Furthermore, it is said therein: 'It remains upright without changing.' That is its meaning. Furthermore, should one seek the meaning by relying on the name, or seek it by relying on the meaning? If one seeks it by relying on the name, for example, just as there are countless different languages and countless names for vegetables, the tastes will also become different accordingly. Just as there are different names but only one taste, it is not feasible to have an uncertain meaning. If one seeks it by relying on the meaning, just as an enlightened person becomes proficient in the tantras, one will also become proficient in all beings. Since neither of these is possible, temporarily clinging to something that is not a horse or an ox as a horse or an ox. Because it does not exist in the deluded consciousness, it is either an alternating result or like fire flowing into water. Just as the consciousness clings to fire as water, if one must determine the name, it will either have opposite characteristics. Therefore, saying that fire is water is uncertain. If water itself is what, if your fire is reversed, it will definitely become water, and bowing one's head like others is the same as before. If that itself is also uncertain, it will become endless, just as barley gives rise to peas, and peas give rise to buckwheat. If one says this is arbitrary, is one denying the establishment of the mundane? Since one's own uncertainty exists within oneself, there is no difference from a certain intention. If that is also uncertain, like the self-arisen Great Perfection, in the Great Perfection, the schools that speak of distinctions, according to the view that appearances are uncertain, is that appearance uncertain as permanent or uncertain as impermanent? Since the three times do not coexist, permanence is contradictory, and the vow of uncertainty is also broken. If it is uncertain as impermanent, is it merely that appearance is uncertain as impermanent? From the reversal of appearance, it is determined as impermanent. If it is like the previous appearance, merely appearance is impermanent and uncertain, then the nature of reality is also impermanent and uncertain. Therefore, one cannot find a difference from the delusion of meaning. If one says that appearance is uncertain because the seasons of things, time and color, plants, etc., change, so one can know. Saying that is no different from the previous things. If one says from the reversal of appearance, it cannot be established because it contradicts the previous promise. If one thinks there is a nature of reality separate from appearance, just as the subject and the reversal are different, one cannot avoid the fault that the nature of reality will also become different.
Chinese
索。又，大圆满宗认为，以理智而言，识是不确定的。识是一次性地被认为是不确定的吗？还是逐渐地被认为是不确定的？如果像前者那样，在第一个刹那，当眼睛的意识显现蓝色时，如果它没有完成，也会看到黄色的显现。因为这不可能发生，所以一次性地不确定对于所知是不可能的。如果逐渐地不确定，是在特征确定后不确定，还是在未确定时就不确定？如果像前者那样，不确定性会消失，就像确定为马的特征就不可能变成牛一样。如果从未确定中产生不确定性，那么对不确定性的执着也会变得不正确。又，所谓的大圆满虚空宗，认为轮回和涅槃都不确定。是从轮回的逆转而不确定到涅槃吗？还是从涅槃的逆转而不确定到轮回？如果像前者那样，因为涅槃的自性没有成立，那么涅槃就像轮回一样，也成了假设。如果像后者那样，轮回的各种现象会显现得非常清楚。如果说轮回和涅槃二者不确定，那么用什么作为知识来证明呢？这是不可能实现的。又，大圆满宗说一切都是假名，认为名字是不确定的。正如前面所说的那样，已经知道了。又，大圆满宗说欲望是无限的空性，认为意义是不确定的。这也已经在前面说过了。这些只是简要地说明，在《阿底庄严大论》中，讲述了一千六百种认为不确定的方式，那是在夜叉的境界中实践的。因此，就像小乘宗中，业和异熟是确定的，业的尽头是轮回一样。所有这些认为不确定的，难道不是所知的法吗？了解这些，就能断除对外在大圆满的执着，从而能够实践自己的意义。当被这样询问时，导师回答说：“正如佛所说的那样。”并给予了认可。这样，第三个关于大圆满认为不确定的辩论，连同问答一起被阐述。现在，大圆满宗认为自生智是基础，是意义的真实基础，以下是辩论和问答：再次祈请太阳合一