English
Since it is not a dharma contained by "mind," the so-called "continuum" is the continuum of the substance of the mind of a person, and there is no different continuum for dharmata. Therefore, for the self-born wisdom of dharmata, it is appropriate as stated here, such as "without beginning, middle, or end." How could the subtle and gross mind of each sentient being's continuum follow after all the dharmas related to their respective continua? All sentient beings would become one continuum. There is no distinction between self and other in the Tathagatagarbha, because there is originally no elaboration of the characteristics of self and other. Your own mind is contained by your own continuum, and the minds of others are in the continua of others, so wouldn't there be countless different continua like the number of sentient beings? If you think that the mind of dharmata is also the dharmata of the minds of each sentient being, so it is similar to that, it is not similar. If there is an attachment to the characteristics of self and other continua, etc., then it will become like that. For that which has no characteristics at all, where is the difference in continua? Just as it is said, "Like space pervading all forms," etc. Although from the perspective of the basis of emptiness, sixteen kinds of distinctions of emptiness, etc., are made, emptiness itself is without the elaboration of one and many in its own nature. Similarly, the Tathagatagarbha, the innate nature of mind, is free from the eight elaborations of characteristics, the limits of the four extremes, and the thirty-two additions and subtractions. And your ordinary mind, because it has not abandoned the characteristics of elaboration such as arising and ceasing, how could it be the original purity and spontaneous accomplishment of the Great Perfection? In short, innate mind is the awareness of the Tathagatagarbha. At the end of the three existences, the naked face of awareness-emptiness appears. To whom does it appear? There is no other of object and subject, but it appears as self-illumination. That which appears is the discriminator, the subtle mind, saying so is the foothold of the lower philosophical schools. This is the play of wisdom, it is self-born wisdom, not mind. Later, the gross mind remembers that, because self-born wisdom knows with the part that pervades all knowable things, so it cannot be distinguished from mind. In the lamp of self-born wisdom, in the Great Perfection Tantra *Radical Transformation Tantra*, it speaks of five distinctions such as the basis-abiding self-born, the appearance-holding, the memory-uninterrupted. Among them, the memory-uninterrupted is gathered by wisdom.
Chinese
是毫无保留地显现明澈。大圆满的见解也通过闻思来确定。了知遍及意识部分的各个分别智慧的共相和自相，这就是所说的以三种入门智慧来寻觅闻思修。这依赖于与自生智慧具有相同体性的具有者和所具有法，即自住的智慧是智慧的部分，而不是被分别念和能取所取的意识所包含，这是全知者所说的。 再次，任何具有生、住、灭三者的法都是有为法，没有这三者则必须被任何人安立为无为法。如果问如何安立这三者的有无，则以自执的量来安立。如果不依赖于名言义理的量，则有无永远无法成立。即使将虚空观为无碍，实际上也必须成立为有碍等。此处的安立必须完全依赖于名言的辨析。 因此，由于虚空在名言上没有丝毫可指定为实体的特征，所以在名言中安立为无生灭或无坏灭，即安立为无为法，安立为常。同样，对于意识的法性双运，在究竟的辨析体验中，虽然觉性或明分在体验中存在，但却无法指定为“这个”，以至于丝毫也看不到它与空性有任何差别。那么，如何安立为生、住、灭三者呢？如果指定为生、住、灭三者，则会变得与这三者不可分离。如果不可分离，法性怎么会没有生等呢？因此，成立了远离生、住、灭三者的觉性存在。 如果说不成立，因为觉分、明分、显分全部遍及有为法和无常，而空分全部是有为法和常法，那么法性双运就永远不存在了。由于双运不是实相，所以会变成非法性，法性会变成纯粹的空性。如果那样，就变成修法性，心中只想着空性，永远不会生起离戏等。因此，佛陀不会将法性和有法视为无别。 此外，如果意识的法性不是智慧，那么就存在微细意识的大圆满。既然如此，为什么不存在六识微细的大圆满呢？微细和粗大的意识都是有法，而它们的法性是大圆满的觉性。
English
It is to reveal clarity without reservation. The view of Dzogchen is also established through hearing and thinking. Knowing the general and specific characteristics of the discriminating wisdom that pervades the aspect of mind-consciousness, this is what is said to be seeking hearing, thinking, and meditation through the three entering wisdoms. This relies on being one in essence with the possessor and the possessed dharma, which are inherent wisdom, that is, the self-abiding wisdom is a part of wisdom, not included by the mind with conceptualization and grasping, as stated by the Omniscient Great One. Furthermore, any dharma that has the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing is conditioned. The absence of these three must be established as unconditioned by anyone. If asked how to establish the presence or absence of these three, it is established by the measure of self-grasping. Without relying on the measure of conventional meaning analysis, existence or non-existence can never be established. Even if space is perceived as unobstructed, it must be established that there is obstruction in reality. The establishment of this must rely solely on conventional analysis. Therefore, since space has no characteristics that can be specifically designated as an entity, it is conventionally established as having no arising or ceasing, or no destruction, that is, it is established as unconditioned and established as permanent. Similarly, for this union of the nature of mind-consciousness, in the ultimate analytical experience, although the aspect of awareness or clarity is present in the experience, it cannot be specifically designated as "this," so that it is not seen as being in any way different from emptiness. How then can it be established as having the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing? If it is designated as having the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing, it will become inseparable from these three. If it is inseparable, how can the nature of reality not have arising, etc.? Therefore, it is established that there is awareness that is free from the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. If it is said that it is not established because all aspects of awareness, clarity, and appearance are pervaded by conditioned and impermanent phenomena, and all aspects of emptiness are conditioned and permanent, then the union of the nature of reality will never exist. Since union is not the true state, it will become non-reality, and the nature of reality will become purely emptiness. If that is the case, then one will meditate on the nature of reality, only thinking of emptiness, and one will never attain freedom from elaboration, etc. Therefore, the Buddhas do not see the nature of reality and the possessor of reality as being inseparable. Furthermore, if the nature of mind-consciousness is not wisdom, then there is the subtle mind-consciousness of Dzogchen. Since that is the case, why is there no subtle Dzogchen of the six consciousnesses? Both subtle and coarse mind-consciousness are possessors of reality, and their nature is the awareness of Dzogchen.
Chinese
是的，细微意（指阿赖耶识）不是大圆满的觉性。为什么粗分的意识不是大圆满？这样询问其原因。如果显现为智慧，无论细微或粗分，都有觉性与空性的双运。如果没有显现，那么无论细微或粗分，都同样无法证悟真如。修习空性也是如此，因为细微和粗分都能修习。如果说细微的修习更为殊胜，那么请问为什么？如果回答说因为没有二取和分别念，那么因为细微也是意，所以不可能没有能取所取。如果没有粗大的分别念，那么也同样不会忆念因明等。意和意识显现为阿赖耶识时，有能取所取，有生灭。当显现为智慧时，这两者都没有。即使没有，如果说觉性是不常的，那么请问其依据是什么？那是因为从六识中的任何一识所生的四缘而生起的缘故。如果说没有那个，那么那个的觉性也没有，那么那个的空性也与此相同，即那个的觉性和双运的空性，没有觉性也是不可能的。如果存在，那么空性不依赖于觉性而恒常存在就成了过失。瓶子等显现的部分和那个的空性也是如此。如果说那个没有自性，所以不是有为法，那么觉性也是如此。说瓶子是无生，如果不是指显现的瓶子是无生，那么瓶子作为有为法，无论如何也不可能是无生，因为生是不被遮止的。如果生不被遮止，那么空性也不会成立。如果因为是真实的而说无生是独立的，那么瓶子的生就成了可以被观察的了。此外，六识自明的明分和法性的觉性并非他体，如果说是他体，那么就成了不是此处的觉性了。如果说觉性所缘是阿赖耶识的所取境，不缘是智慧的所取境，所以虽然显现的方式是不常的，但其状态已经超越了常与无常的边。超越边，仅仅因为存在且没有断灭性，就被安立为无为法。如果不是这样，那么空性也是一样。此外，天空的显现是不常的，天空成了常等也会发生，同样，天空无常，天空的自性是常等也可以说，即使不执着觉性与空性是他体，如果觉性无常，空性是常，也会发生上述过失。如果因为恒常不显现，在心识前时而显现时不显现而变成无常，那么空性又如何呢？
English
Yes, subtle mind (referring to the Alaya-vijñana) is not the awareness of Dzogchen. Why is coarse consciousness not Dzogchen? Thus, inquire into its reason. If it arises as wisdom, whether subtle or coarse, there is a union of awareness and emptiness. If it does not arise, then neither subtle nor coarse can realize suchness. Meditating on emptiness is also similar, because both subtle and coarse can meditate. If it is said that subtle meditation is particularly superior, then ask why. If the answer is because there is no dualistic appearance and conceptual imputation, then since the subtle is also mind, it is impossible to be without grasping and the grasped. If there are no coarse concepts, then it is similar in that one would not remember logic, etc. When mind and consciousness arise as Alaya-vijñana, there is grasping and the grasped, there is arising and ceasing. When it arises as wisdom, these two are absent. Even if absent, if it is said that the aspect of awareness is impermanent, then ask what the basis for that assertion is. It is because it arises from the four conditions that arise from any of the six consciousnesses. If that is absent, then that aspect of awareness is also absent. Then the emptiness of that is also the same, that is, the emptiness of that awareness and union is also impossible without awareness. If it exists, then it would be a fault that emptiness does not rely on awareness and exists permanently. The appearance of a pot and its emptiness are similar. If it is said that it is unconditioned because it has no essence, then awareness is also the same. Saying that a pot is unborn, if it does not mean that the appearing pot is unborn, then the pot as a conditioned phenomenon can never be unborn, because birth is not prevented. If birth is not prevented, then emptiness will not be established. If it is said that unborn is independent because it is true, then the birth of the pot would be subject to investigation. Furthermore, the clear aspect of the self-illuminating six consciousnesses and the awareness of the nature of reality are not different entities. If they were different, then it would be a fault that it is not the awareness here. If it is said that the object of awareness is the object of grasping of Alaya-vijñana, and the non-object is the object of grasping of wisdom, so although the way of appearance is impermanent, the state has transcended the extremes of permanence and impermanence. Transcending extremes, just because it exists and is not subject to cessation, it is established as unconditioned. If it is not so, then it is the same for emptiness. Furthermore, the appearance of the sky is impermanent, and it would follow that the sky is permanent, etc. Similarly, it can be said that the sky is impermanent and the nature of the sky is permanent, etc. Even if awareness and emptiness are not apprehended as different entities, if awareness is impermanent and emptiness is permanent, the above faults will occur. If it becomes impermanent because it does not always appear, sometimes appearing and sometimes not appearing before the mind, then what about emptiness?