Chinese
因此，说“俱生”是不可能成立的，因为“本初清净”的自性中没有“俱生”。第三，能损害者也不成立。因此，本初清净的自性与俱生、因果、关联等是相互矛盾的。对此，导师回答说，本初清净没有任何垢染，因为实相的自性是本初清净的。如果有人说，因为众生没有解脱，所以知道这一点，那么，没有解脱和解脱的众生也只是法性的显现或游舞。因为在本初清净的自性中，没有成立解脱，所以自性是空性的。因为也没有成立没有解脱，所以自性中没有障碍。解脱和没有解脱超越了二元对立，所以大悲没有亲疏和偏袒。提问者向导师提问，菩萨再次祈请：如果基的实相的安住方式的自性是本初清净的，那么，说“自性是俱生”也就没有必要了。如果从自性的角度来说是本初清净的，那么，自性是俱生又有什么用呢？因为遍行不成立。如果因为自性是本初清净的，所以俱生不合理，或者因为自性是俱生的，所以不应该说自性是本初清净的，那么，虽然法性中没有任何成立，但是在众生的显现中，如果自性是本初清净的，自性是俱生的，那么也找不到阻碍的理由。导师回答说，为了反驳，导师说，实相的安住方式，因为没有任何可以言说的词语成立，所以，能说和所说的言说，声音和词语，自性都是空性的。因此，本初清净在任何事物中都不成立，又怎么可能有俱生呢？如果有人说，那么，说“本初清净”的声音就失效了吗？回答说，因为是言说的词语和名相，所以没有矛盾。为什么呢？因为在本初清净的自性中，没有任何自性成立。因为实相的自性中没有文字，所以词语不会对此造成损害。对此，有人提问：因为没有损害的关键，所以连利益也没有成立，那么，说“自性本初清净”的意愿就失效了吗？回答说，因为是本初清净，所以没有希求和承诺。如果产生了希求，那就不是法性。如果产生了一个承诺，那就不是基。如果说没有希求，那么说“本初清净”就失效了吗？回答说，是言说的词语，本初清净在词语中成立
English
Therefore, it is impossible to establish "coemergent" in the essence of "primordial purity" because there is no "coemergent" within it. Thirdly, the afflicting factor is also not established. Thus, the essence of primordial purity and coemergence, along with cause and effect and their connections, are mutually contradictory. To this, the Teacher responded by saying that there is no stain whatsoever in primordial purity, because the very essence of reality is primordially pure. If one asks, "Is it known because sentient beings are not liberated?" then those who are not liberated and those who are liberated are also seen as the play or manifestation of the nature of reality. Because liberation is not established in the very essence of primordial purity, the essence is utterly empty. Because non-liberation is also not established, there is no obstruction in its nature. Since both liberation and non-liberation are beyond appearance, compassion is without bias or partiality. The questioner challenged the Teacher, and the Bodhisattva further requested: "If the very essence of the way the ground of reality abides is primordially pure, then saying 'its nature is spontaneously present' becomes unnecessary." If it is primordially pure in terms of essence, what is the use of spontaneous presence in its nature? Because the pervasive factor is not established. If, because the essence is primordially pure, spontaneous presence is not appropriate, or because the nature is spontaneously present, it should not be said that the essence is primordially pure, then although nothing is established in the nature of reality, in the appearance of sentient beings, if the essence is primordially pure and the nature is spontaneously present, then no reason for obstruction can be found. The Teacher responded, refuting the argument, saying that the way reality abides is such that no word can establish it, therefore, the expression of what is expressed and the expression of the expresser, sound and word, are devoid of inherent existence. Therefore, primordial purity is not established in anything, so how could spontaneous presence be possible? If one asks, "Then does the sound of saying 'primordial purity' diminish?" The answer is that because it is an expression of words and terms, there is no contradiction. Why is that? Because in the essence of primordial purity, no essence is established. Because there are no letters in the nature of reality, words are free from harming it. To this, it is questioned: "Because the key to non-harming does not even establish benefit, does the intention of saying 'essence of primordial purity' diminish?" The answer is that because it is primordially pure, there is no desire or acceptance. If desire arises, it is not the nature of reality. If a single acceptance arises, it is not the ground. If there is no desire, does saying 'primordially pure' diminish? The answer is that it is an expression of words, and primordial purity is established in words.
Chinese
没有。如果仅仅是口头上说“本来清净”，那么，语言不是本来清净，本来清净也不是语言。如果语言不是本来清净，那么语言用什么来阻碍本来清净呢？因为语言不是基础，所以本来清净不可能仅仅通过语言来成立。那么，如果否认承诺，说“没有承诺”就像“没有名字”成了名字一样，实际上是承诺了吗？如果仅仅是说就成了承诺，那么，如果我说“你是第三个蕴”，你会成为第三个蕴吗？就像不会成为第三个蕴一样，仅仅是说没有成为承诺的理由。或者，如果一个人说“我是全知者”，他也不会因此成为全知者。因此，从众生对轮回和涅槃执着为自我的各种念头涌现的角度来看，如果揭示基础，就会像七次第一样在对境上产生。这样，由于念头的差别，记忆会以各种方式涌现。这是指这个意思。真正来说，由于念头的不同，语言上的损害是可能的，但事物的本质是远离利益和损害的。例如，就像用武器攻击天空一样。人攻击天空，除了徒劳无益之外，对天空没有任何利益或损害。同样，由于念头的分别、记忆和思考没有停止，即使说“语言上犯了错误”，也只是徒劳无益，对事物的本质没有任何利益或损害。如果语言上的错误会影响到事物本身，那么，如果语言上设定用武器雨攻击一个人的身体，并且在语言上说“我用武器雨攻击你的身体”，实际上会下起武器雨吗？就像不会下起武器雨一样。因此，语言的损害和利益对事物的本质没有区别。此外，考虑到众生的念头，从大圆满自生自显的角度来说，对于认为大圆满如实宣说本来面目，没有错误和不错误的宗派进行反驳：如果没有错误，众生从何而来？如果没有不错误，全知智慧会被阻碍吗？因为众生在所知境上没有成立，所以从未成立过“错误”。“全知”这个词在念头上没有成立，所以本质上是空性，远离一切执着。
English
No. If it is said that "primordial purity" is merely a verbal expression, then language is not primordially pure, and primordial purity is not language. If language is not primordially pure, then what obstructs primordial purity by language? Since language is not the basis, primordial purity cannot be established merely through language. Now, if there is no acceptance, is saying "there is no acceptance" similar to "no name" becoming a name, and thus actually accepting? If merely speaking becomes acceptance, then if I say "you are the third skandha," will you become the third skandha? Just as you will not become the third skandha, merely speaking is not a reason for acceptance. Or, if a person says, "I am omniscient," that person will not become omniscient. Therefore, from the perspective of the various thoughts of sentient beings clinging to samsara and nirvana as self, if the basis is revealed, it arises in the object of focus like the seven successions. Thus, due to the distinctions of thoughts, memory arises in various ways. This is what is meant. Truly, because of the difference in thoughts, verbal harm is possible, but the essence of things is free from benefit and harm. For example, it is like striking the sky with weapons. When a person strikes the sky with weapons, there is no benefit or harm to the sky, other than their own futility. Similarly, because the conceptualization of thoughts, memory, and thinking do not cease, even if it is said that "there is a verbal fault," it is merely one's own futility, and there is no establishment of any benefit or harm to the essence. If the fault of language affects the essence, then if language sets the intention to rain down a rain of weapons on the body of a person, and in language says, "I will rain down a rain of weapons on your body," will it actually rain down a rain of weapons? Just as it will not rain down a rain of weapons. Therefore, there is no difference in the essence between the harm and benefit of language. Furthermore, considering the thoughts of sentient beings, from the perspective of the Great Perfection's self-arising, refuting the system that believes the Great Perfection speaks of the way things are, without error or non-error: If there is no error, from where do sentient beings come? If there is no non-error, is the omniscient wisdom obstructed? Because sentient beings are not established in the knowable, "error" has never been established. The word "omniscient" is not established in thought, so the essence is emptiness, devoid of all attachments. Again
Chinese
对大圆满始中末三者，驳斥认为从未错乱之宗义。 那个从未错乱，是本来就未曾错乱，还是偶然的？ 如果是本来就未曾错乱的要点，那么现在也不会处于错乱之中。 那么，对于本来就没有错乱的，轮涅成立吗？ 不成立。 轮涅任何一个都不成立，所以从未错乱。 那么，因为现在不处于错乱之中，众生错乱于各种各样的分别念，这会阻碍吗？ 如果你看见众生成立，那么也会看见依赖于此的佛陀，但这又被现量所否定。 再次，驳斥认为大圆满是顿超，并认为不可能错乱之宗义。 如果不可能错乱，那么和断灭论者没有差别，是吗？ 断灭论是不承认前后的，并且认为现在的意识是偶然的，而这（大圆满）是最初未曾错乱的要点，所以现在也不处于错乱之中，自显自解脱。 最终，因为不可能错乱，所以是不经过三界之要点。 再次，驳斥认为大圆满错乱之基是功德和过患之宗义。 如果显现为功德，就不会显现为过患，如果成立为过患，那么功德就不可能圆满，是吗？ 从功德的方面来说，是本来清净，如果显现为过患、游舞和嬉戏，那么就没有阻碍。 驳斥认为大圆满显现为二取，并认为是能力和功德之宗义： 如果显现为能力，就不是功德，是吗？ 像这样，显现和不显现，存在和不存在，常和无常，空和不空等等，一切都是法性本来清净之智慧的能力，所以是自清净，显现为功德，所以是自圆满。 一切都逃到了有无的堡垒中。 再次，对于认为大圆满无过患自解脱是无垢本来清净之宗义，进行辩论： 如果说本来就清净，那么众生的心识分别念是不合理的，是吗？ 因为本来就清净，所以我没有看见这一切众生。 这是用教证来否定的。 这是对于认为大圆满是法性，并认为本体、自性、大悲之宗义进行辩论： 如果显现为本体，就不是自性，也不是大悲，是吗？ 本体是远离心识的，所以是自性
English
Refutation of the tenet that claims the Great Perfection (Dzogchen) is free from delusion from the beginning, middle, and end. That which has never been deluded: Is it that it has never been deluded from the very beginning, or is it accidental? If it is the key point of never having been deluded from the very beginning, then even now it does not abide in delusion. So, for that which has never been deluded from the very beginning, are samsara and nirvana established? They are not established. Since neither samsara nor nirvana is established, it has never been deluded. So, since it does not abide in delusion now, does this obstruct the delusion of sentient beings into various thoughts? Have you seen sentient beings established? If you see them, then you will also see the Buddha who depends on them, but this is again refuted by direct perception. Again, refutation of the tenet that claims the Great Perfection is 'dong sprugs' (emptying out from the depths) and believes that delusion is impossible. If delusion is impossible, then there is no difference from those who assert annihilation, is there? Annihilationists do not accept the past and future, and they assert that present consciousness is accidental, but this (Great Perfection) is the key point of never having been deluded from the beginning, so even now it does not abide in delusion, self-arising, self-liberating. Ultimately, because delusion is impossible, it is the key point of not passing through the three realms. Again, refutation of the tenet that claims the basis of delusion in the Great Perfection is considered to be qualities and faults. If it arises as a quality, then it does not arise as a fault, and if it is established as a fault, then qualities cannot be perfected, is that so? From the aspect of qualities, it is primordially pure, and if faults appear as skill and play, then there is no obstruction. Refutation of the tenet that claims the Great Perfection appears as duality and considers it to be skill and qualities: If it arises as skill, then it is not a quality, is it? Like this, appearance and non-appearance, existence and non-existence, permanence and impermanence, emptiness and non-emptiness, and so on, all are the skill of the wisdom of the nature of reality that is pure from the beginning, so it is self-purified, and arising as a quality, it is self-perfected. All have fled to the fortress of existence and non-existence. Again, a debate on the tenet that claims the Great Perfection, free from faults, is self-liberated, and considers it to be stainless and primordially pure: If impurity is pure from the beginning, then the conceptual thoughts of sentient beings are unreasonable, is that so? Because impurity is pure from the beginning, I have not seen all these beings. This is refuted by scripture. This is a debate on the tenet that claims the Great Perfection is the nature of reality and considers essence, nature, and compassion: If it appears as essence, then it is not nature, nor is it compassion, is that so? Essence is free from mind, so it is nature.