English
If emptiness becomes a fault of the change of things, then it is also impossible for appearance and emptiness to appear inseparably. Furthermore, if someone says that Dzogchen is complete liberation, and believes in the union of permanence and annihilation, that is, believing in impermanence, believing that there is no before and after. Because this is temporarily established, do whatever you like now. Because there is no before and after, believing that karma and its results are not true is a nihilistic view that deviates from the right path. Because the former has ceased and does not exist, and the latter has not yet arisen and does not exist, if it is believed that the present body and mind arise from accidental causes and conditions, then, just as the former has ceased, what if the present one also ceases? Because the pervader cannot be found, it will surely cease. If, like the present consciousness, this accidental consciousness enters another accidental body in the future, what if the pervader cannot be found? If you say it is not so, how do you know it is not so? The action cannot be found. If you say you know it through scripture and reasoning, then you can also use scripture and reasoning to prove that it is so. If you say that a new consciousness enters a new body, then where does this consciousness that is now obtained come from? If you say it comes from appearance, then, like this, appearances with and without obstruction can also produce the function of consciousness. If you think that the initial appearance obscures consciousness, so now the cause is consciousness and the condition is the body, and the two accidentally gather together and arise, then, if you say that the previous consciousness was temporarily obscured by appearance, so now it arises from the union with the body, what should be done? Its pervasion cannot be found. Similarly, the proof that will not appear in the future cannot be found either. Furthermore, if someone says that Dzogchen is two entries, and believes that clarity and emptiness are inseparable, then, is it said to be inseparable because clarity and emptiness are equal? Is it said to be the union of two? Is it said to be mixed? If it is the former, clarity is the object to be grasped, and emptiness does not abide in the grasper and the grasped, it is impossible for the two to be equal. If it is inseparable because of the union of two, if clarity enters emptiness, it will become limited, and if emptiness enters clarity, it will become the fault of being infinite. If it is said to be mixed, clarity is the object, and emptiness is the nature, the two cannot be mixed, just as the oil lamp and the light of the oil lamp cannot be mixed. Furthermore, if someone says that Dzogchen is arising and merging
Chinese
在认为有意识的宗派中，意识是常存的吗？还是无常的？其理与前述相同。又，说大圆满生起，认为物质是显现方式的宗派是：物质是二者的基础吗？还是与物质相反的是基础？如前者，则物质也能起化身的作用，有此过失。如后者，则与词句相悖。又，在大圆满中，说无边无际，认为各种各样的心是宗派的那些人，大圆满与唯心没有区别。如果有区别，则与认为唯心是多种多样的没有区别。如果没有区别，则承认大圆满就没有必要了。又，在大圆满中，说具有明点，认为颜色是显现作用的宗派是：颜色是一种吗？还是多种？如果是一种，则与从色法执着为意识没有区别。如果认为是多种，则因为是白色，黄色就被排除在外等，有此损害。如果说同时显现，则与说唯心多种是无二无别的没有区别。如果各自显现，则会变成不同的过失。又，在大圆满中，说以理智为基础，认为遍布的显现部分是基础的宗派是：如果显现是基础，那么就像眼睛看到色法一样，鼻子也应该能看到，因为是遍布的同一个。如果说是各个感官的显现部分，那么基础也会变成各个，因为具有各自的作用，与说是多种多样没有区别。因此，这个基础不是所知吗？被提问后，回答说也是如此，对于了知来说，需要断除戏论，而不是需要修持。如是，第七个关于大圆满的观点，即从自生显现中，对任何可以改变的基础进行辩驳，并展示了问答。现在，第八个关于大圆满的观点，即从自生显现中，对任何可以承认的基础进行辩驳，并展示问答。又是祈请者，导师普贤王如来等所说，是结集者向导师请教的。具有任何承认的，导师自己在以前结集的时候所说的一切，我都理解为只是方向的投射，也就是任何承认。
English
In the school that posits consciousness, is that consciousness permanent? Or is it impermanent? The reasoning is similar to what was shown above. Furthermore, those who say that the Great Perfection arises and consider matter to be the mode of appearance: Is matter the basis of the two? Or is that which is the opposite of matter the basis? According to the former, it would follow that matter could also perform the function of emanation, which would be a fault. According to the latter, it would contradict the words. Furthermore, in the Great Perfection, those who say it is limitless and consider various minds to be the school: The Great Perfection is no different from Mind-Only. If there is a difference, then there is no difference from considering Mind-Only to be diverse. If there is no difference, then there is no need to accept the Great Perfection. Furthermore, in the Great Perfection, those who say it has bindus and consider color to be the manifesting function: Is color one? Or many? If it is one, then there is no difference from apprehending form as consciousness. If it is considered to be many, then since it is white, yellow is implicitly excluded, and so on, which is harmful. If you say it appears simultaneously, then there is no difference from saying that Mind-Only is diverse and non-dual. If they appear separately, each in its own way, then it will become the fault of being different. Furthermore, in the Great Perfection, those who say it is based on reason and consider the pervasive appearance aspect to be the basis: If appearance is the basis, then just as the eye sees form, the nose should also be able to see, because it is the same pervasive one. If it is said to be the appearance aspect of each sense faculty, then the basis will also become separate, because it has its own function, and there is no difference from saying it is diverse. Therefore, is this basis not knowable? When asked, the answer was that it is so, and for understanding, it is necessary to cut off elaboration, not to practice. Thus, the seventh point regarding the view of the Great Perfection, which is to refute any basis that can be transformed from self-arisen appearance, and to show the questions and answers. Now, the eighth point regarding the view of the Great Perfection, which is to refute any basis that can be accepted from self-arisen appearance, and to show the questions and answers. Again, the supplicant, the teacher Samantabhadra, and so on, said, which the compiler asked the teacher. Possessing any acceptance, everything that the teacher himself said during the previous compilation, I understand to be merely a projection of direction, that is, any acceptance.
Chinese
那么，是从有的一面来接受呢？还是没有也接受？如果从有的一面接受，是恒常有呢？还是无常有？如果像前面那样，过去、未来、现在在哪一个时段有？或者说，三者都有的道理与前面所说相同。如果连没有也承认，是暂时没有呢？还是恒常没有？如果是暂时没有，就成了断灭论者，没有什么区别。如果是恒常没有，就像虚空中的花朵或兔子的角一样，不能作为没有的比喻。这也是为了将所有清净和不清净都在心中确立。或者会变成无穷尽的过失，因此要知道基础是有缺陷的。还有，在自生圆满的大圆满中，对于所有声称大圆满没有穷尽的人都解脱的说法进行驳斥。如果解脱后知道，是证悟后解脱呢？还是不明白也解脱？如果是前者，是通过语言明白呢？还是通过意义明白？如果是通过语言明白，如果说通过说出“在语言中解脱”就能解脱，那么念诵和世间的传说也应该通过说出“解脱”而解脱，这是不可能的。如果通过确定这个词语而解脱，那么经书就会解脱，如果依靠它所表达的意义而解脱，那么就和知道或不知道的情况一样，与前面相同。如果是通过意义明白，是通过有意义而明白呢？还是通过没有意义而明白？如果有意义，是通过恒常有意义而明白呢？还是无常也有明白等等，与前面相同。如果那个意义必须证悟，如果证悟时具有体性，就会变成实有，如果证悟时不具有体性，那就不是意义。如果不明白也解脱，那么就和外道论者，说死后脱离自身而解脱没有什么区别。如果说不明白就本来解脱了，那么也会因为自己想要的“解脱”这个词而堕落。还有，对于声称大圆满超越对治，认为自解脱的观点进行驳斥。那个自解脱是从自身解脱呢？还是自己让自己解脱？如果是前者，从自身自解脱，就会变成二元对立，如果是自己让其他解脱，就会变成无穷尽的过失。如果是自己让自己解脱，那么将“知道”放在基础上，自解脱就会变成能知和所知。还有，对于声称大圆满见解自清净而解脱，认为当下解脱的观点进行驳斥。那么，仅仅通过看见就解脱呢？还是通过知道看见而解脱？如果是前者
English
So, do we accept it from the aspect of existence? Or do we accept it even if it doesn't exist? If we accept it from the aspect of existence, is it eternally existent? Or impermanently existent? As before, in which of the past, future, or present does it exist? Or is the reasoning that it exists in all three similar to what was shown earlier? If we accept it even if it doesn't exist, is it temporarily non-existent? Or perpetually non-existent? If it's temporarily non-existent, then it's the same as asserting annihilation, and there's no difference. If it's perpetually non-existent, then it cannot be used as an example of non-existence, like a sky flower or a rabbit's horn. This is also to establish all pure and impure things in the mind. Or it will become an endless fault, so we should know that the basis is flawed. Furthermore, in the Great Perfection of self-arising desire, we refute the view of those who claim that all who say the Great Perfection is without end are liberated. If, knowing liberation, is it liberated after realization? Or liberated even without understanding? If the former, is it understood through words? Or understood through meaning? If it's understood through words, if saying "liberation in words" liberates, then recitation and worldly stories should also be liberated by saying "liberation," which is impossible. If liberation comes from establishing that word, then the scriptures would be liberated, and if liberation comes from the meaning based on that, then it's the same as knowing or not knowing, as before. If it's understood through meaning, is it understood through meaningfulness? Or understood through meaninglessness? If it's meaningful, is it understood through eternal meaningfulness? Or is there understanding even with impermanence, etc., as before? If that meaning must be realized, if it's realized with characteristics, it becomes substantial, and if it's realized without characteristics, then it's not meaning. If liberation comes without understanding, then there's no difference from the non-Buddhist proponents who say that in the future, the elements are liberated by separating from their own essence. If you say that not understanding is inherently liberation, then it is ruined by the sound of self-desire called "liberation." Furthermore, regarding the view of those who claim the Great Perfection transcends antidotes and assert self-liberation: Is that self-liberation liberated from itself? Or does the self liberate itself? If the former, if self-liberation is from itself, it becomes dualistic, and if the self liberates another, it becomes an endless fault. Even if the self liberates itself, placing "knowing" on the basis, self-liberation becomes the knower and the known. Furthermore, refuting the view of those who claim that seeing the Great Perfection is liberated as self-purified, asserting immediate liberation: Is it liberated by merely seeing? Or is that seeing liberated by knowing? If the former
Chinese
因此，仅仅是看见就能解脱。眼睛看见事物就解脱了。如果通过认识它而解脱，是认识到存在，还是认识到不存在等等，都和前面一样。再者，对于承认大圆满是无基而想要本来解脱的宗派进行辩驳。本来解脱，是通过改造而解脱，还是不改造而解脱？如果像前者那样，就会被未解脱的词语所损害。如果像后者那样，就不会成立解脱，因为如果本来就解脱，那和动物有什么区别？如果说没有改造和不改造的词语，那么就意味着在事物的实相中也没有解脱和未解脱的词语，这是自相矛盾的。再者，对于说轮回无始无终，并想要存在解脱的大圆满宗派进行辩驳。这样，一切显现都解脱了吗？还是仅仅一部分解脱？如果一切显现都解脱了，那么就会被现量所破斥。如果仅仅一部分解脱，那么就会被整体的词语所损害。如果元素融入自身本性而解脱，那就是断灭。如果不是那样，像这样如何解脱？这会被现量所破斥。如果说这本身就是自解脱，那么大小乘的法就没有必要了。因此，对于无论什么基础都承认的这个，难道不是所知的法吗？这样提问后，回答说，上师说和以前一样，这样就断除了戏论，并且不是需要修持的法。这样，第七个，对于大乘自生之欲中，无论什么都可以承认的辩驳，通过问答的方式进行了阐述。现在是第八个，对于大圆满自生之欲中，本来清净之欲排除其他过失的问答进行阐述。从那以后，菩萨也是。等等九个词语在正文中很清楚。从那以后，就是驳斥他人观点的“从那以后”，导师考虑到事物的本性存在方式，为了让结集者实现自己的观点而努力。说道：“奇哉！大菩萨，听着！”这样呼唤后，因为我所阐述的词语没有错误，所以教导结集者你要好好记住这些词语。因为词语的戏论不是多种名称的使用范围，所以这是无法用词语来确定的要点。因为名相的戏论不是存在不存在、常断，所以无论显现什么，也没有任何事物的自性成立。因为心的戏论没有各种各样的流动，所以这是自性没有变化的要点。成立的边