English
So. Furthermore, the Great Perfection school, which asserts that, in terms of reason, consciousness is indeterminate. Is consciousness considered indeterminate all at once, or gradually? If it's like the former, in the first instant, when the eye consciousness appears blue, if it's not complete, the appearance of yellow will also be seen. Because this cannot happen, being indeterminate all at once is impossible for the knowable. If it's gradually indeterminate, is it indeterminate after the characteristics are determined, or is it indeterminate even when undetermined? If it's like the former, the indeterminacy will disappear, just as being determined as the characteristic of a horse cannot become a cow. If indeterminacy arises from being undetermined, then clinging to indeterminacy will also become incorrect. Furthermore, the so-called Great Perfection Space school, which believes that neither samsara nor nirvana is determinate. Is it indeterminate from the reversal of samsara to nirvana, or is it indeterminate from the reversal of nirvana to samsara? If it's like the former, because the nature of nirvana is not established, then nirvana, like samsara, also becomes a fabrication. If it's like the latter, the various phenomena of samsara will appear very clearly. If it's said that samsara and nirvana are both indeterminate, then what will be used as knowledge to prove it? This is impossible to achieve. Furthermore, the Great Perfection school says that everything is merely a designation, believing that names are indeterminate. As mentioned earlier, it is already known. Furthermore, the Great Perfection school says that desire is infinite emptiness, believing that meaning is indeterminate. This has also been mentioned earlier. These are just brief explanations. In the Great Adornment of Ati, it is said that there are one thousand six hundred ways of considering indeterminacy, which are practiced in the realm of yakshas. Therefore, just as in the Lesser Vehicle, karma and its maturation are determinate, and the end of karma is samsara. Are all these beliefs of indeterminacy not knowable dharmas? Understanding these can cut off attachment to external Great Perfection, thereby enabling one to practice one's own meaning. When asked in this way, the teacher replied, "It is just as the Buddha said," and gave approval. Thus, the third debate about the Great Perfection's belief in indeterminacy, along with the questions and answers, has been explained. Now, the Great Perfection school believes that self-arisen wisdom is the basis, the true basis of meaning. The following is the debate and answers: Again, I beseech the union of the sun
English
Thus, the compiler asked. "Alas, alas, Teacher Samantabhadra." Having called out in this way, the Teacher himself, during the previous compilation, spoke with the meaning of the basis being determined, the real one spoke with this aspiration. Regarding these who wish to determine, I understand it as follows: it is not the true essence. That is, is the determination determined for itself? Or is it determined for others? Like before, does each determination determine for permanence? Or does it also determine for impermanence? If it determines for permanence, then in the past, permanence has passed away, because it is not known, so it is not known whether it is determined or not. The future is not manifest, so it is not known. If it is determined now, because it is consciousness, saying it is permanent will diminish it. In all three times, the knower of determination cannot be found. Because there is no basis for the sound of impermanence to be applied, it cannot be found. If it determines for both permanence and impermanence, then saying permanent indirectly excludes impermanence. Saying impermanent indirectly excludes permanence, because they cannot exist together, so it is contradictory. For example, fire and water cannot exist together. If it is determined for others, for example, for those suffering from yellow eye disease, the nature of a conch shell is white, but because of the power of being afflicted by the disease, it appears yellow to him, then that should be determined for everyone, because no one can reverse that appearance. Because you determine for yourself, how do you know that the nature of the conch shell is yellow? How do you reverse the attachment to yellow? That is, because the yellow of the conch shell is not determined on the basis, seeing yellow is not correct. Similarly, others do not see yellow either. That is, from the cause continuing from itself, with the difference of the fruit being determined and transforming in its own place, even if you want to determine self and other as non-dual, because what is established by the two is self, so it prevents the other. Because it is the other, it prevents the self. Therefore, being free from the extremes of both self and other, therefore, that basis is also not truly existent from what is to be known. Or, if you want to determine that the cause is the cause, then the result will never arise, so it will become the fault of cause and effect being unrelated. Because the result is determined as the result, it is impossible for a sprout to arise from a seed. If the non-Buddhist Murtugpa says, from the cause the result arises, and does not want the cause to arise from the result, seek the difference. That is, because the non-Buddhists want the self to be permanent, so from cause to result, it is determined to be food.
Chinese
又，如果认为不会产生其他如稻谷之类的果实，同样，如果认为我（梵文：ātman）是恒常的事物，具有确定的时间和地点，或者认为我是恒常的，但心识会变化，那么认为我是确定的，就没有区别了。此外，在自生圆满大圆满中，从认为大圆满是自然状态的观点出发，如果认为因果是确定的，那么业的因果是确定为因，还是确定为果？认为从因中确定产生果。如果按照前一种观点，因是众生，就不会产生果——佛；如果确定是果，那么对于果——佛陀（藏文：བུདྡྷ་བ་），就不可能错误地认为因是无明。如果从因中确定产生果，那么因是杀生，果也会变成杀生。如果认为因果是相互循环的，那么确定的观点就会丧失。此外，从认为大圆满是具有所知境的观点出发，如果认为所知是确定的，那么所知是通过知而确定，还是不知也确定？如果知而确定，那么如果知是清晰地确定，就会走向有境；如果确定为空性，就会走向无边。对于存在、不存在、恒常、断灭等等，都有损害。如果以无二的方式知，就找不到理由，因此没有能知。如果不知也确定，那么确定的观点就会丧失。此外，从认为大圆满是开阔无碍的观点出发，如果认为心识是确定的，那么心识是确定会变化，还是确定不会变化？如果按照第一种观点，确定的誓言就会丧失；如果按照第二种观点，心识会变化成各种各样，这是谁也无法阻止的，这就被直接否定了。这非常不合理。如果说心识的流动是从流动之处确定的，那么就会出现基础分裂成碎片的问题。如果认为心识变化，但我不会变化，那么就与恒常没有区别。此外，从认为大圆满是具有能知识的观点出发，如果认为时间是确定的，那么是过去、未来还是现在？对于过去，如果不是确定的，那么现在的身体就能知道；如果认为未来是确定的，那么断灭论者会说，现在的意识是偶然的，是从因缘聚合而产生的，在身心分离的时候，因缘自然消失，不会再回来，与这种观点就没有区别了。如果确定在现在，那么就能通过心识的各种念头和各种不同的显现来了解。这样，这六种观点是简要的概括，详细地
English
Furthermore, if one thinks that other fruits such as rice will not arise, similarly, if one thinks that the self (Sanskrit: ātman) is a permanent entity with a fixed time and place, or if one thinks that the self is permanent but the mind changes, then thinking that the self is fixed is no different. Moreover, in the Dzogchen of self-arisen intention, from the viewpoint of considering Dzogchen to be the natural state, if one thinks that cause and effect are fixed, then is the cause and effect of karma fixed as the cause or fixed as the effect? It is thought that the effect is definitely produced from the cause. According to the former view, the cause is sentient beings, and the effect—Buddha—will not arise; if the effect is fixed, then for the effect—Buddha (Tibetan: བུདྡྷ་བ་), it is impossible to mistakenly think that the cause is ignorance. If the effect is definitely produced from the cause, then the cause is killing, and the effect will also become killing. If one thinks that cause and effect are mutually cyclical, then the fixed view will be lost. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of considering Dzogchen to be that which has knowable objects, if one thinks that the knowable is fixed, then is the knowable fixed by knowing it, or is it fixed even without knowing it? If it is fixed by knowing it, then if the knowing is clearly fixed, it will go towards having an object; if it is fixed as emptiness, it will go towards the infinite. For existence, non-existence, permanence, annihilation, and so on, there is harm in all of them. If one knows in a non-dual way, one cannot find a reason, therefore there is no knower. If it is fixed even without knowing it, then the fixed view will be lost. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of considering Dzogchen to be open and unobstructed, if one thinks that the mind is fixed, then is the mind fixed to change, or is it fixed not to change? According to the first view, the fixed vow will be lost; according to the second view, the mind will change in various ways, which no one can prevent, and this is directly negated. This is very unreasonable. If it is said that the flow of the mind is fixed from the place of flow, then the fault of the basis splitting into fragments will occur. If one thinks that the mind changes, but the self does not change, then there is no difference from permanence. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of considering Dzogchen to be that which has consciousness, if one thinks that time is fixed, then is it the past, the future, or the present? For the past, if it is not fixed, then the present body can know; if one thinks that the future is fixed, then the annihilationists will say that the present consciousness is accidental, arising from the aggregation of causes and conditions, and when the body and mind separate, the causes and conditions naturally disappear and will not return, and there is no difference from this view. If it is fixed in the present, then one can know through the various thoughts of the mind and the various different kinds of appearances. Thus, these six views are a brief summary, in detail
Chinese
因此，在扎霍尔地区，有五千零一十八位观点不同的班智达，这里不再赘述。因此，询问说，这个基础是否必须被认为是不可知的？如果知道这一点有什么必要呢？知道这一点是为了断除繁琐的必要，而不是为了能够修持。导师对结集者说了回答。其中，上面所说的“相似的”是指第四个大圆满自生之欲，从中显示了确定意义的真实基础，包括问答。现在，第六个大圆满自生之欲，从中详细地显示了承认基础可以被转化为任何事物的辩驳和问答。然后，结集者说：“从那以后，又这样祈请”等等。导师在上面总结的时候说，基础可以被转化为任何事物，这是以前总结的时候说的。我这样理解：如果自己的事物、自性的状态可以被转化，那么它就可以被转化。是通过作为来转化，还是不作为也可以转化？如果是通过作为来转化，那么基础就会变成有为法的过失。如果不作为也可以转化，那么转化的誓言就会破灭。如果认为不确定性可以被转化为任何事物，那么因为状态可以被转化，就无法避免走向无果的过失。这也类似于不确定的情况。因此，这个基础也和不确定性一样。即使变成了果，果本身也会变成因。因此，众生不需要清净的事物，即使获得了果，也会变成因。像轮回的法一样轮回，反复地循环，就像一个轮子的传承一样。果变成因，因变成果。如果基础改变，例如，无情之物不可能被转化为有情之物。因此，基础不可能像通过转化来改变那样。就像无情之物不可能变成有情之物一样，这个基础也不能被心所转化，事物也不能被转化。也就是说，按照大圆满自生之欲，大圆满黑忿怒空行母说，任何事物都可以被转化。