English
It should be understood according to my own treatises. These, if viewed in terms of meaning, are all conceptual constructs. As it says in "La Shan": By arranging four reasons, etc., in order, even if everyone says they understand the thing itself, if it is effortless and impossible in reason, then it only appears as subsequent inference. So it is said. To establish that all phenomena are primordially enlightened through unique inference: The mindstream of sentient beings, in whatever path or stage, is primordially enlightened, because enlightenment manifests through realization. If it is said that the reason of "because" is not established, then it would follow that one is not primordially enlightened, nor will one become enlightened through realization, and enlightenment will never occur, which contradicts the scriptures. As it says in "Exceeding Wisdom": If the mind is realized, it is wisdom, therefore one should cultivate the concept of not seeking the Buddha from elsewhere. And as it says in "Compendium": Having fully understood the nature of phenomena through wisdom, one will truly transcend all three realms. And as it says in "Definitive Meaning Gathering": The wisdom body of all Buddhas arises from the realization of self-born wisdom, like unconditioned space. And as it says in the Sutra: Ema, wondrous and amazing Dharma, concealed by all the complete Buddhas, realizing the nature of mind is Buddhahood, there is no other than that. And so on. Even if one becomes enlightened through realization, why say that one is not primordially enlightened? If it is said that the pervasion is not established, then if one realizes that one is enlightened when one is not primordially enlightened, that is not realization, and faults such as delusion will arise. Again, if it is said that the reason of becoming a Buddha through realization is not established, and that the Buddha arises from causes and conditions, then if it arises from causes and conditions, the Buddha would become conditioned. If you admit that, since conditioned things are perishable, the Buddha would also become impermanent and perish. If you say that although it arises from causes and conditions, it is unconditioned, then your own words are very contradictory, like saying "My mother is a woman." Also, the two form bodies are conditioned appearances temporarily shown to those to be tamed, and the term Buddha refers to the ultimate Dharmakaya. Therefore, the ultimate refers to the essence body or the nature of the two pure Dharmakayas, which is unconditioned. If you say that the two form bodies are conditioned and temporary, then they are impermanent.
Chinese
没有超出产生和毁灭的轮回的边际，因此不是究竟的佛。为什么呢？因为是暂时在所化众生面前显现的缘故。如果承认，那么经典和续部的宣说也会变成有垢染等过失。要知道法性身和法身要点相同，究竟法身不是由因缘所生，如果承认，那么佛由因缘所生就相违背了。为什么呢？因为法身是非造作的缘故。即使由因缘所生也是造作的，如果它不是造作的，那么就无法摆脱上述的过失。还有，最初由因缘所生，但获得法身时就从因缘中解脱出来，所以不是非造作的，如果这样认为，那么就像瓶子一样，最初由因缘所生，但后来从因缘中解脱出来，也会变成非造作的等过失。瓶子是事物，而法身从事物中解脱出来，所以是非造作的，如果这样认为，如果不是事物，那么就会变成不是由因缘所生，而且如果不是事物，是从一开始就不是事物呢？还是获得法身后才不是事物？如果一开始就不是事物，那么就会变成不是由因缘所生。如果是后来才不是事物，那么就会产生被因破坏等诸多过失。那么将因作为道用错了吗？不是的，是为了某种目的和意图而说的权宜之说，目的是为了让颠倒的所化众生逐渐进入正确的意义。意图是：对于不明白痛苦并且执着于事物的众生，通过领悟而从痛苦中解脱出来，并且认为显现自己所具有的功德是果。因此，将因作为道用也只是权宜之说，是针对不同根器而宣说的。在《广大游乐经》中说：将因缘视为果，也只是为了引导而说的权宜之说。那么，按照密宗的观点，如果显现和存在所包含的一切本来就是佛，那么就有两个过失：对是佛的事物进行责难，以及对将果作为道用进行责难。第一点是：如果显现的这些是佛，那么佛就会变成有为法，并且会变成有实体、有物质、以及具有生老病死的痛苦等等。
English
It does not transcend the boundaries of arising and ceasing samsara, therefore it is not the ultimate Buddha. Why? Because it is temporarily appearing to the disciples. If you accept this, then the teachings of sutras and tantras will also become tainted, and so on. Know that the essence body and the Dharma body are the same in essence, the ultimate Dharma body is not produced by causes and conditions. If you accept this, then the Buddha arising from causes and conditions is contradicted. Why? Because the Dharma body is unconditioned. Even if it arises from causes and conditions, it is conditioned. If it is unconditioned, then it cannot escape the aforementioned faults. Furthermore, even if it initially arises from causes and conditions, when the Dharma body is attained, it is liberated from causes and conditions, so it is not unconditioned. If you think so, then like a vase, even if it initially arises from causes and conditions, it will later be liberated from causes and conditions, and it will also become unconditioned, and so on. A vase is a thing, but the Dharma body is liberated from things, so it is unconditioned. If you think so, if it is not a thing, then it will become not produced by causes and conditions, and also if it is not a thing, is it not a thing from the beginning? Or is it not a thing after attaining the Dharma body? If it is not a thing from the beginning, then it will become not produced by causes and conditions. If it is not a thing later, then many faults such as being destroyed by conditions will arise. Then, is it wrong to use the cause as the path? No, it is a provisional statement made for a certain purpose and intention, the purpose is to gradually lead the deluded disciples to the correct meaning. The intention is: for sentient beings who do not understand suffering and are attached to things, to be liberated from suffering through realization, and to consider the manifestation of their own qualities as the result. Therefore, using the cause as the path is also just a provisional statement, and it is taught according to what is suitable for each individual. In the *Extensive Play Sutra*, it says: Considering causes and conditions as the result is also just a provisional statement taught for guidance. Then, according to the view of the secret mantra practitioners, if everything contained in appearance and existence is originally Buddha, then there are two faults: criticizing something that is Buddha, and criticizing using the result as the path. The first point is: if these appearances are Buddha, then the Buddha will become conditioned, and will become substantial, material, and have the suffering of birth, old age, sickness, and death, and so on.
Chinese
会有过失吗？如果这样说，是指由积聚所生和生灭等现象没有止息的过失吗？还是指会落入边见的过失？如果如前者所说，那是承认的，因为自性没有生灭，而是自显现的缘故。如果如后者所说，那么理由不成立。如果说显而易见，那么就像下面所说的那样。还有，佛像前面所说的三种那样，众生本来就是如是之佛，如果从本性是佛的角度来说会有过失吗？还是因为处于错觉的显现中而说？如果如前者所说，那么理由不成立。如果说显而易见，那么就要考察显现是错觉还是非错觉。如果如后者所说，那么在错觉的显现中有生灭等，但在本性中是没有的，因为错觉并不重要。《道次第》中说：‘非为积聚现积聚，积聚显现即金刚，是故自性无差别。’这样说。还有，如果所显现的境是佛，那么会有不需要道的过失，如果需要道，那么会有道没有尽头的过失等等，会有这些过失吗？回答就像下面所说的那样。第二，如果将果作为道，是将成熟的作为道，还是将未成熟的作为道？如果如前者所说，那么会有道没有尽头的过失，如果如后者所说，那么就没有果的定义了。因为自性成熟且不可退转，所以是将成熟的作为道，这是以使未证悟者证悟的方式作为道。《庄严经论》中说：‘证悟之后作融合，道之自性菩提心。’这样说。如果这样，即使果成熟也需要道，那么会有没有尽头的过失吗？是指自性没有尽头的过失吗？还是指证悟之道没有尽头的过失？如果如前者所说，那是承认的。《琼钦》中说：‘于边际无有穷尽，于虚空无有减少。’这样说。如果如后者所说，那么黑汝嘎就不会成立，因为证悟之道已经达到终点，因此之后就不需要道和证悟了。还有，如果果本来就是佛，那么会有不需要道的过失吗？是从是佛的角度来说有过失吗？还是说使未证悟者证悟是不需要的？如果如前者所说，那是承认的。《大威力》中说：‘外与内与法界，于清净之行境中，佛与有情无二别，道又如何能改造？’这样说。
English
Will there be faults? If so, does it mean that the appearances of compounded things and arising and ceasing, etc., do not cease? Or does it mean that it falls into extremes? If it is as the former, then it is accepted, because the essence does not arise or cease, but is self-appearing. If it is as the latter, then the reason is not established. If it is said that it is clear by direct perception, then it is as it will be explained below. Furthermore, the Buddhas are like the three mentioned above. Since sentient beings are Buddhas as they are from the beginning, does it mean that there will be faults from the perspective of their nature being Buddha? Or is it said because they are in the appearance of delusion? If it is as the former, then the reason is not established. If it is said that it is clear by direct perception, then we must examine whether the direct perception is delusion or not delusion. If it is as the latter, then there are arising and ceasing, etc., in the appearance of delusion, but they do not exist in the nature, because delusion is not important. In the Lamrim it is said: 'What is not compounded appears as compounded, the appearance of compounded is Vajra itself, therefore the essence is not different.' It is said. Furthermore, if the object of appearance is Buddha, then there will be the fault of not needing the path, and if the path is needed, then there will be the fault of the path being endless, etc. Will there be these faults? The answer will be given as it will be explained below. Secondly, if the result is taken as the path, is the ripened taken as the path, or the unripened taken as the path? If it is as the former, then there will be the fault of the path being endless, and if it is as the latter, then there will be no definition of the result. Because the essence is ripened and cannot be reversed, the ripened is taken as the path, and this is taken as the path in the way of making the unawakened awakened. In the Ornament it is said: 'Whatever mixes after realization, the essence of the path is Bodhicitta.' It is said. If so, even if the result is ripened, the path is still needed, so will there be the fault of being endless? Does it mean that the essence is endless? Or does it mean that the path of realization is endless? If it is as the former, then it is accepted. In the Khyunchhen it is said: 'There is no end to the edge, and there is no decrease in the space.' It is said. If it is as the latter, then Heruka will not be established, because the path of realization has reached the end, so there is no need for the path and realization afterwards. Furthermore, if the result is originally Buddha, then will there be the fault of not needing the path? Is it said that there is a fault from the perspective of being Buddha? Or is it said that it is unnecessary to make the unawakened awakened? If it is as the former, then it is accepted. In the Tsalchhen it is said: 'Outer and inner and the realm of Dharma, in the realm of pure conduct, Buddha and sentient beings are not two, how can the path transform it?' It is said.
Chinese
萨喔。如果按照后一种说法，那么外在的理由就不成立了，因为领悟未领悟之义非常重要。如果那样说，本来是自己就足够了，但如果需要，就会陷入无路可走和没有需要的境地。如果这样说，那就非常不合理了，如果本来自己就足够了，那么就会出现未领悟和邪见永远不会产生的过失。而且，按照他们自己的观点，无论是无常、空性还是离戏等等，任何你想要的，那些本身就足够了，不需要领悟，否则就会出现过失。而且，具有特征的果实是作为道路，还是不具有特征的果实作为道路？如果按照后一种说法，就没有定义。如果按照前一种说法，果实的特征已经成熟，无法行走，但道路是进入和行走的，所以将果实作为道路是矛盾的。对此，《十经》中说：“非因所生之果，不应理智说。”又说：“此菩提心之果，非因所生之果。”因此，不是由因产生的果实，心的本质本来就成熟，除了心之外无法行走，所以具有特征的果实是作为道路的，消除过失如前所述。《心要》中说：“此乃大秘密之决定，果实已成道路。所有胜者的坛城，无有胜过此之秘密意义。”这样说了。因为不明白这个道理，而将果实执着为自体的缘故，阿底指出了过失：如果心是果实，那么就会出现被因缘产生的过失，如果不产生，就没有果实的定义。因此，对于一切未造作的法，执着为因果二者，就无法达到究竟的意义。克隆中说：“执着因果二者，背离未造作，对真实义进行诽谤。”又，《经》中说：“因果无别即彼性，不移不动超境界，因与果之分别念，一切幻相束缚之。”又，《普作续》中说：“未领悟自生因果超越性，以世间相法衡量，说从因中寻找而产生果，那是因果正法引导。”这样说了。因此，将果实作为道路，也是为了必要。