English
Therefore, in the region of Zahor, there were five thousand and eighteen panditas with different views, which will not be elaborated here. Therefore, it was asked, "Is this basis necessarily to be considered unknowable?" If there is any need to know this, it is to cut off the need for elaboration, not to be able to practice it. The Teacher gave an answer to the compiler. Among them, the "similar" mentioned above refers to the fourth Great Perfection Self-Arisen Desire, from which the true basis of definite meaning, including questions and answers, is shown. Now, the sixth Great Perfection Self-Arisen Desire, from which the refutation and questions and answers that admit that the basis can be transformed into anything are shown in detail. Then, the compiler said, "From then on, I also prayed in this way," and so on. The Teacher said when summarizing above that the basis can be transformed into anything, which was said when summarizing before. I understand it this way: if one's own thing, the state of nature, can be transformed, then it can be transformed. Is it transformed by acting, or can it be transformed without acting? If it is transformed by acting, then the basis will become the fault of being conditioned. If it can be transformed without acting, then the vow to transform will be broken. If it is thought that uncertainty can be transformed into anything, then because the state can be transformed, the fault of going to no result cannot be avoided. This is also similar to the case of uncertainty. Therefore, this basis is also the same as uncertainty. Even if it becomes a result, the result itself will become a cause. Therefore, sentient beings do not need pure things, and even if they obtain the result, it will become a cause. Like the Dharma of Samsara, it revolves and repeats again and again, like a lineage of wheels. The result becomes the cause, and the cause becomes the result. If the basis changes, for example, inanimate objects cannot be transformed into animate objects. Therefore, the basis cannot be changed by transformation. Just as inanimate objects cannot become animate objects, this basis cannot be transformed by the mind, and things cannot be transformed. That is, according to the Great Perfection Self-Arisen Desire, the Great Perfection Black Wrathful Dakini says that anything can be transformed.
Chinese
问：所知是否能被其自性所转变？答：通过作为能转变。如前者所说，由于从自性转变为自生，因此“能被转变”的观点在字面上就失败了。通过作为，因为是有为法，所以基础是不可能的。如果说通过努力和勤奋可以转变，那也和前面一样。然而，如果说是自性转变，那么“能被转变”的观点也在字面上失败了。此外，大圆满宣称心是可以转变的，根据这种观点，心是胜义谛吗？还是世俗谛？如前者所说，就像心的各种活动一样，胜义谛也会变得各种各样。如果不这样认为，那么可以通过教理和理性来了解。如果是世俗谛，那么就会陷入非事物本性的过失，因此非常不合理。此外，大圆满宣称觉性者认为显现和假立是可以转变的，根据这种观点，显现和假立是基础吗？还是不是？如果是，那么假立是名，显现是色，基础就会变成名和色，无法避免基础变成名色的过失。如果不是，那么“能被转变”的观点就失败了。这三个是简要的概括，而这本身也有八十五种不同的观点，并且在北方木土布置的王国中广为流传。因此，认为任何基础都可以被转变，这本身难道不是所知吗？当被问到时，导师的回答也是如此，这不是应该实践的法，如果了解有什么必要，那么就有不陷入恶劣宗派的必要。因此，从大圆满的观点自发显现中，展示了关于任何基础都可以被转变的辩论和问答。现在，第七个是从大圆满的观点自发显现中，展示了关于基础是花斑或多种多样的辩论和问答。由菩萨再次提问等来展示。之前是由结集者向导师提问，在后来的时代则是辩论者和反驳者。导师在前面结集的时候说基础是花斑，这也不符合我的观点，那么，对于那个花斑，是从转变的角度认为是花斑呢？还是不变且未被改变也认为是花斑？如果从转变的角度认为，
English
Q: Can the knowable be transformed by its nature? A: It can be transformed through being made. According to the former, since it is transformed from nature into self-arising, the view that "it can be transformed" fails in its literal sense. Through being made, since it is conditioned, the basis is impossible. If it is said that it can be transformed through effort and diligence, it is the same as before. However, if it is said that it changes by its own nature, then the view that "it can be transformed" also fails in its literal sense. Furthermore, the Great Perfection, which claims that the mind can be transformed, according to this view, is the mind ultimately true? Or is it conventionally true? As the former says, just like the various activities of the mind, the ultimate truth will also become various. If not, it can be understood through scripture and reason. If it is conventionally true, then it will fall into the fault of not being the nature of things, so it is very unreasonable. Furthermore, the Great Perfection, which claims to be a knower, believes that appearances and imputations can be transformed, according to this view, are appearances and imputations the basis? Or are they not? If so, then imputation is name and appearance is form, and the basis will become name and form, and the fault of the basis becoming name and form cannot be avoided. If not, then the view that "it can be transformed" fails. These three are a brief summary, and there are also eighty-five different views on this itself, and it is widely spread in the kingdom arranged in the northern wood and earth. Therefore, is it not the knowable itself to think that any basis can be transformed? When asked, the teacher's answer is also the same, this is not a dharma to be practiced, if there is any need to understand, then there is a need not to fall into bad sects. Therefore, from the spontaneous manifestation of the Great Perfection's view, the debate and questions and answers about any basis that can be transformed are shown. Now, the seventh is from the spontaneous manifestation of the Great Perfection's view, the debate and questions and answers about the view that the basis is mottled or diverse are shown. It is shown by the Bodhisattva asking again, etc. Before, the compiler asked the teacher, and in later times, they were debaters and rebutters. The teacher said that the basis is mottled when compiling in the front, which is also inconsistent with my view, so, for that mottled, is it considered mottled from the perspective of transformation? Or is it considered mottled even if it is unchanged and unaltered? If considered from the perspective of transformation,
Chinese
这不可能，因为这驳斥了对同一事物产生不同现象的错误。有时是柱子，有时是瓶子，有时是马，有时是大象，这样变化。说“是柱子”就暗中排除了瓶子，说是“是瓶子”就暗中排除了柱子。如果说既是柱子又是瓶子，那么从柱子的角度来看，它没有成为瓶子，从瓶子的角度来看，它没有成为柱子。此外，由于一个原因产生不同的结果，就像用石头做的针不能缝纫一样。所谓“杂色”，意思是显现为各种白色、红色等。唯识宗说各种事物是无二的。例如，当眼睛看到彩色的空丝绸时，虽然显现为各种现象，但如果说真实的本质是眼睛的单一识，那该如何回答？如果认为不变且未经改造也是彩色的，那么就会犯基础不同的错误。因此，无论谁说“既是白色又是黄色”，因为本质如此显现，由于结果不同，就不能归结为一个意义，这与多种意愿相同。由于多种意愿的声音会削弱前后各自的意愿，因此不是正确的。此外，从大圆满自生意的角度来看，对于那些说大圆满心是常恒，并认为有和无会随状态而变化的宗派来说，存在的状态会变成不存在吗？或者从不存在的角度来看，会变成存在的状态吗？如果像前者那样，那么与断见者说“现在存在，未来不存在”没有区别。如果像后者那样，就像没有人能将天空变成物体一样。有和无的两种变化在所知中是不可能的。此外，对于那些说大圆满是自生，并认为显现和空性是显现者（或显现的方式）的宗派来说，是显现显现，还是空性显现？或者两者双运显现？如果显现显现，那么显现是被改造后显现，还是未经改造而显现？如果像前者那样，那么使用“显现”这个词的理由就消失了。如果未经改造而显现，由于显现如此显现，就无法确定显现者或显现的原因。如果空性显现，那么空性不适用燃烧或显现的声音。如果双运显现，如果空性进入显现，那么作为物体的显现就不可能存在。空性进入显现
English
This is not possible, because it refutes the fault of different appearances arising from one thing. Sometimes it is a pillar, sometimes it is a pot, sometimes a horse, and sometimes an elephant, thus changing. Saying "it is a pillar" implicitly excludes the pot, and saying "it is a pot" implicitly excludes the pillar. If you say it is both a pillar and a pot, then from the perspective of the pillar, it has not become a pot, and from the perspective of the pot, it has not become a pillar. Furthermore, since different results arise from one cause, it is like a needle made of stone cannot perform the function of sewing. The term "variegated" means it is considered to appear as various white, red, and so on. The Mind-Only school says that various things are non-dual. For example, when the eye sees a variegated empty silk, although it appears as various phenomena, if one says that the true essence is the single consciousness of the eye, what is the answer? If one considers it variegated even though it is unchanging and unconditioned, then it becomes the fault of different bases. Therefore, whoever says "it is both white and yellow," because the essence appears in that way, due to the different results, it cannot be resolved into one meaning, and this is the same as having various desires. Because the sound of multiple desires diminishes the desires of each previous and subsequent moment, it is not correct. Furthermore, from the perspective of the Great Perfection of self-arising intention, for those who say that the Great Perfection mind is permanent and believe that existence and non-existence change according to the state, does the state of existence become non-existence? Or from the perspective of non-existence, does it become a state of existence? If it is like the former, then there is no difference from the nihilist who says, "It exists now, but it will not exist in the future." If it is like the latter, it is like no one can transform the sky into an object. The two changes of existence and non-existence are impossible in what is to be known. Furthermore, for those who say that the Great Perfection is self-arising and consider appearance and emptiness to be the manifester (or the way of manifesting), does appearance manifest, or does emptiness manifest? Or do both manifest in union? If appearance manifests, then does appearance manifest after being conditioned, or does it manifest without being conditioned? If it is like the former, then the reason for using the word "manifest" is diminished. If it manifests without being conditioned, since appearance appears in this way, the manifester or the cause of manifestation cannot be determined. If emptiness manifests, then the sound of burning or manifesting does not apply to emptiness. If it manifests in union, if emptiness enters appearance, then the appearance as an object cannot exist. Emptiness enters appearance
Chinese
如果空性成为事物变化的过失，那显现和空性二者无别地显现也是不可能的。再说，如果有人说大圆满是完全解脱，并且认为常断结合，那就是认为无常，认为没有先后。因为这是暂时安立的，所以现在就随心所欲地做吧。因为没有先后，所以认为业和果报是不真实的，这是偏离正道的邪见。因为前者已经灭尽而不存在，后者尚未产生而不存在，如果认为现在的身心是从偶然的因缘产生的，那么，就像前者灭尽一样，如果现在的这个也灭尽了，那该怎么办呢？因为找不到遍行，所以必定会灭尽。如果像现在的觉知一样，偶然的觉知进入到后世的另一个偶然的身体里，那该怎么办呢？找不到遍行。如果说不是这样，那怎么知道不是这样呢？找不到作用。如果说通过经论和理证知道不是这样，那么也可以用经论和理证来证明是这样。如果说新的身体里进入了新的觉知，那么，现在获得的这个觉知是从哪里产生的呢？如果说是从显现中产生的，那么，像这样，有质碍的和没有质碍的显现也都能产生有觉知的功用了。如果认为最初显现遮蔽了觉知，所以现在因是觉知，缘是身体，二者偶然地聚集在一起而产生的，那么，如果说以前的觉知暂时被显现遮蔽，所以现在与身体结合而产生，那该怎么办呢？找不到它的遍行。同样，也找不到后世不会出现的证明。再说，如果有人说大圆满是二入，并且认为光明和空性无别，那么，光明和空性相等所以说是无别吗？说是二者结合吗？说是混合吗？如果是前者，光明是所取的部分，空性是不安住于能取和所取二者的，二者相等是不可能的。如果是二者结合而无别，如果光明进入空性，就会变成有局限的，如果空性进入光明，就会变成无边际的过失。如果是混合，光明是境，空性是自性，二者是不能混合的，比如油灯和油灯的光明二者是不能混合的。再说，如果有人说大圆满是生起和融入