Chinese
由于没有像蜡烛熄灭一样的心识永远断绝的道理，所以获得无漏的五蕴之后，那些五蕴暂时以阻止的力量使心识和心所的显现之因停止，但通过进入断除所知障的大乘道而想要现证佛陀，依靠真实力可以成就。 这样的话，心识的自性是光明，染污都是暂时的。 这句话的意思，有从胜义空性的角度来解释，有从世俗心识的自性的角度来解释，有从二谛无别心识的究竟实相的角度来解释三种，第一种，心识的自性是指以真谛空性的空性，没有混入无遮止。对于它，有什么被错觉所染污的呢？因为是无心识的缘故。这就像证明树木没有我执一样，即使那样成立，对于心识本身没有混入杂质也没有任何帮助。第二种，解脱和错觉都要从心识的层面来安立，如果心识的自性或状态被错觉所染污，那么永远也不会解脱，但错觉被证明是暂时产生的。如果错觉的心识是暂时的，那么就不得不承认存在一个没有被暂时的错觉所染污的基础心识，这样就出现了承认有一个无垢识，也就是第九识的宗派。但是，像那样的没有能取所取的识，与八识是异体还是非异体，两种都不合理，所以被证明是不存在的。因此，所谓的心识的自性，是指考虑到心识的相续或习性而那样说的，对于现在的错觉心识来说，没有必要另外去识别一个没有被错觉所染污的心识。之后，当错觉消失的心识，是没有被错觉所染污的，所以，总的来说，心识的自性没有染污，这被认为是无过失的。在名言中，心识的自性和心识不是他体，如果自性和具有自性是他体，那么就会变成没有热度的火。第三种，所谓的心识的自性，是指自然状态或实相，而它的究竟实相是觉性与空性双运，对于它来说，就像从来没有被错觉所染污一样，是永恒的。
English
Since there is no reason for the mind to be permanently cut off like a candle being extinguished, after obtaining the five aggregates of non-outflow, those five aggregates temporarily stop the manifestation of mind and mental factors by the power of obstruction, but by entering the Mahayana path of eliminating the obscurations of knowledge, the desire to realize Buddhahood is accomplished by the power of reality. In that case, the nature of the mind is luminosity, and defilements are temporary. The meaning of this statement can be explained from the perspective of ultimate emptiness, from the perspective of the nature of conventional mind, and from the perspective of the ultimate reality of the indivisibility of the two truths. First, the nature of the mind refers to the emptiness of true emptiness, which is not mixed with non-affirming negation. What is there to be defiled by delusion? Because it is without mind. It is like proving that trees have no self-grasping. Even if it is established, it does not help the mind itself without being mixed with impurities. Second, both liberation and delusion must be established from the level of mind. If the nature or state of mind is defiled by delusion, then there will never be liberation, but delusion is proven to arise temporarily. If the mind of delusion is temporary, then one must admit that there is a basic mind that is not defiled by temporary delusion. In this way, the doctrine of admitting a stainless consciousness, that is, the ninth consciousness, arises. However, such a consciousness without subject and object is either different from or not different from the eight consciousnesses, both of which are unreasonable, so it is proven to be non-existent. Therefore, the so-called nature of mind refers to the continuity or habit of mind, and it is said in that way. For the current delusional minds, there is no need to separately identify a mind that is not defiled by delusion. Later, the mind that reverses delusion is not defiled by delusion. Therefore, in general, the nature of mind is not defiled, which is considered faultless. In conventional terms, the nature of mind and mind are not different entities. If the nature and the possessor of nature are different entities, then it will become fire without heat. Third, the so-called nature of mind refers to the natural state or reality, and its ultimate reality is the union of awareness and emptiness. For it, just as it has never been defiled by delusion, it is eternal.
Chinese
即使它不偏离那个状态，但由于没有这样认识到，那些执着于心自性成立的轮回者，或者那些认为仅仅是空无的思辨者。第一种被胜义谛的分析所破斥，第二种被究竟双运的分析推理所破斥。虽然对仅仅是空性没有迷惑，但也没有解脱，所以这样的法性不能与具有法的心，亲近无我的方面相分离，又怎能成立与我执分离呢？这是不合理的。然而，如果心不是空性的，就不能与我执分离，如果认为心是无我的，所以执着于无我的方面，那倒是可以，但所谓的心是无我的，是指心的自性是无我的。因此，自性和具有自性的心，仅仅是反体不同，本质上必须没有差别。如果本质不同，心就不会变成无我的，因为心的自性是无我的，而心这两个本质不相同。从空性的角度来说，因为没有，所以不能理解为没有；从显现的角度来说，因为有，所以可以理解为有等等。自性没有被玷污的例子，如虚空、清水和黄金的例子，在法性辨别等中有所阐述。如果与第一种论证方式相符，那还可以；如果与第二种相符，那就不行，因为仅仅是自性空性，必须与该法同时存在。后来清澈的时候，仅仅是空性也是如此。浑浊的时候和清澈的时候的例子，适合作为具有法的心自身的例子。法性仅仅是空性，哪里会有浑浊时和空性两种情况呢？如果与第三种相符，那就非常合适，因为就状态而言，心本来就没有被玷污的可能，所以像虚空一样，自性是完全清净的。但在显现上，由于没有如实认识到状态，可能会出现状态与显现不一致的错觉，就像虚空被云遮蔽，水变得浑浊等等。后来，当错觉消失，状态与显现一致的时候，就像虚空没有云，浑浊的水变得清澈一样。但在有云和浑浊的时候，本质上并没有被遮蔽和玷污。如果像有些人认为的那样，存在没有被能取所取玷污的无垢识，那么从无始以来到最终时刻，从八识聚中分离出一个没有能取所取的识
English
Even if it does not deviate from that state, but because it is not recognized in this way, those transmigrators who cling to the mind as being inherently existent, or those speculators who think of it as merely emptiness. The first is refuted by the analysis of ultimate truth, and the second is refuted by the reasoning of ultimate union. Although there is no delusion about mere emptiness, there is also no liberation, so such a dharmata cannot be separated from the mind, which is the object of dharma, and the aspect of being close to selflessness. How can it be established that it can be separated from self-grasping? This is unreasonable. However, if the mind is not empty, it cannot be separated from self-grasping, but if one thinks that the mind is selfless, so one clings to the aspect of selflessness, that would be acceptable. But the so-called mind being selfless means that the nature of the mind is selfless. Therefore, the nature and the mind that possesses the nature are only different in their reverse aspect, and there must be no difference in essence. If the essence is different, the mind will not become selfless, because the nature of the mind is selfless, and the two essences of the mind are not the same. From the perspective of emptiness, because it is not, it cannot be understood as not; from the perspective of appearance, because it is, it can be understood as being, and so on. Examples of nature not being defiled, such as the examples of the sky, clear water, and gold, are explained in the discrimination of dharmata, etc. If it is in accordance with the first method of proof, that is acceptable; if it is in accordance with the second, that is not acceptable, because mere emptiness of nature must exist simultaneously with that dharma. Later, when it is clear, mere emptiness is also the same. The examples of the time of turbidity and the time of clarity are suitable as examples of the mind itself, which is the object of dharma. Dharmata is merely emptiness, where would there be two situations of turbidity and emptiness? If it is in accordance with the third, then it is very suitable, because in terms of the state, the mind originally has no possibility of being defiled, so like the sky, the nature is completely pure. But in appearance, because the state is not truly recognized, there may be an illusion of inconsistency between the state and the appearance, just like the sky being obscured by clouds, water becoming turbid, and so on. Later, when the illusion disappears and the state and appearance are consistent, it is like the sky having no clouds, and the turbid water becoming clear. But even in the time of clouds and turbidity, the essence is not obscured or defiled. If, as some people think, there is a stainless consciousness that is not defiled by the grasper and the grasped, then from beginningless time until the final moment, a consciousness without the grasper and the grasped is separated from the eight aggregates of consciousness.
Chinese
它在哪里？即使它不执着于自我，也不是能取所取的，那么它是否执着于无我，是否执着于无能取所取？如果是，那么就必须承认一切众生都有一种从一开始就证悟了无我和无能取所取的识，这是不合理的。如果众生的心从无始以来就有一种已经知道无我的心，那么它可以是无垢的，但它怎么不会解脱呢？因此，它也不能利益被迷惑染污的心，所以必须承认解脱和迷惑两种心在一个人的相续中同时存在，这是不合理的。如果它不执着于自我，也不执着于无我，那么像水晶球一样什么都不执着的、空无能取所取的觉知，以其自性不可能执着于自我、无我等任何能取所取，那么，后来执着于无我的就是八识的意，它能够显示解脱。而对于不做解脱和迷惑的第九识的存在，量并没有证成，即使承认存在，也没有任何利益。将此理路应用于将细微意认为是本觉心的情况，也是一样的。粗大的意通过修习无我而解脱，细微意是无能取所取的，它是否已经证悟了无我？或者没有证悟？如果已经证悟，那么一切都将从一开始就解脱了。如果没有证悟，那么就必须重新学习空性。那么，它以前是否不可能执着于任何能取所取？或者可能？如果不可能，那么如何可能执着于无我？如果执着，那么与粗大的意有什么区别等等。如果认为这可以反驳十力智慧显现存在，以及我执显现存在的情况，那么，虽然十力的功德本来就存在，但就那个众生的角度来看，并没有显现。即使从与其它佛的法性没有差别的角度来看是显现的，但名言上由于相续不同，所以此人的障碍没有断除。从法性的角度来看，没有相续的差别，而且迷惑也没有对境，所以不会超出证悟如实之义。以如实所摄的无量法，以及以不证悟彼和彼的方式来了解，是没有矛盾的。这些都是观察之门。
English
Where is it? Even if it does not grasp at self and is not characterized by grasper and grasped, does it grasp at selflessness or is it characterized by grasping at non-grasping? If so, then it must be admitted that all sentient beings have a consciousness that has realized selflessness and non-grasping from the very beginning, which is unreasonable. If sentient beings have a mind that has known selflessness from beginningless time, then it could be without defilement, but why would it not be liberated? Therefore, it also cannot benefit the mind that is defiled by delusion, so it is unreasonable to admit that two minds, liberation and delusion, exist simultaneously in the continuum of one person. If it does not grasp at self and does not grasp at selflessness either, then if the awareness that does not grasp at anything, like a crystal ball, empty of grasper and grasped, by its own nature cannot grasp at any grasper and grasped such as self and selflessness, then later, the one who grasps at selflessness is the mind of the eight consciousnesses, and it can show liberation. But the existence of a ninth consciousness that does not do both liberation and delusion is not established by valid cognition, and even if it is admitted to exist, there is no benefit. Apply this reasoning to the case of considering the subtle mind as the innate mind, it's the same. The coarse mind is liberated by meditating on selflessness, the subtle mind is without grasper and grasped, has it already realized selflessness? Or has it not realized it? If it has already realized it, then everything will be liberated from the beginning. If it has not realized it, then it must learn emptiness anew. Then, was it previously impossible for it to grasp at any grasper and grasped? Or is it possible? If it is impossible, then how is it possible to grasp at selflessness? If it grasps, then what is the difference from the coarse mind, etc. If you think that this can refute the case of the ten powers of wisdom being manifestly present, and the grasping at self being manifestly present, then, although the qualities of the ten powers are inherently present, from the point of view of that sentient being, they are not manifest. Even if it is manifest from the point of view of being no different from the dharmata of other Buddhas, nominally, because the continuums are different, this person's obscurations have not been abandoned. From the point of view of dharmata, there is no difference in continuums, and delusion also has no object, so it does not go beyond the meaning of realizing what is. There is no contradiction in knowing the countless dharmas included by what is, and in not realizing them in that and that way. These are all doors of investigation.