English
That is why it is said. Second, what needs to be completely abandoned: The afflictions to be abandoned, the need is not to be bound, each completely from the perspective of the path. Abandoning, transforming, and making it into the path, each also, in abandoning the self-character of afflictions, the wise all agree. This is to say that all three vows are the same in protecting against non-virtue in one's own mindstream. In the Vinaya Sutra it says: Any dharma that directly or indirectly becomes the cause of desire, this is not free from desire, this is not dharma, not Vinaya, know that it is not the teaching of the Teacher. Any dharma that directly or indirectly becomes the cause of being free from desire, this does not become the cause of desire, this is dharma, this is Vinaya, know that it is the teaching of the Teacher. Thus, it is extensively taught up to and including hatred. Thus, like impure conduct, although the Hearers have the ability to practice it, they do not, and the two that are practiced are taken by the means of the two higher vows, abandoning the afflictions to be abandoned, and the need is not to be bound by those afflictions, the key point is one, and both are the same in that they are not stained by the impurity of desire. Therefore, although the forms of each path appear different, from the point of view of the same key point, what needs to be abandoned is complete. Thus, the Hearers view both truths as substantially existent, so they abandon afflictions with individual liberation; Bodhisattvas view conventional reality as substantially existent and transform afflictions into dharmata; and Secret Mantra practitioners view the nature of the five afflictions as the five wisdoms and make them into the path. Therefore, although the forms of these three antidotes appear to be different, in reality they are the same in abandoning the self-character of afflictions. For example, abandoning poison, purifying with medicine, and eating it after consecrating it with mantras, all three accomplish the need of not being harmed by poison as one. Third, the transformation of the essence: Individual liberation is taken by motivation and bodhicitta, which is the discipline called "protecting against misconduct." Having received empowerment, it transforms into the vow of the Vajra Holder. Therefore, the essence transforms, as is clearly established by the scriptural authority of the Five Hundred Thousand Treatises. In general, the great ones who came before and after, the three vows
Chinese
有两种观点，一种认为戒律的体性是各不相同的，另一种认为转变处所后体性是一致的。在认为各不相同的观点中，又分为两种：一种认为上者能压伏下者，另一种认为下者作为上者的所依，是能依和所依的关系。第一种观点认为，以上者压伏下者为例，就像星星、月亮和太阳三个例子一样，下者被上者压伏，以习气的形式存在于阿赖耶识中，而不是以下者显现的形式存在。这种观点是不合理的。例如，一个具有菩萨戒的比丘，即使没有显现比丘戒，仅仅因为阿赖耶识中有比丘戒的习气，就能算是比丘吗？如果算，那么一切众生都应是比丘，因为阿赖耶识中必须有比丘的习气。不仅如此，一个舍弃了比丘戒的人，你（指对方）的相续中也应该有比丘戒，因为他的意识流中存在着戒律的习气。这个例子也是不恰当的，因为在阳光下，月亮和星星的光芒会被遮蔽，这会导致一种独特的黑暗。如果在三种戒律中没有互相包含，那么除了上者的戒条之外，下者的戒条违犯会导致许多独特的堕落。第二种观点认为，就像在一个干净的容器中倒入没有杂质的水，然后放入一颗祖母绿，容器和水都会变成宝石的颜色，成为宝石的一部分。这三者以能依和所依的关系存在，就像不同的物质一样，上者掌握下者时，下者会成为一部分，但仍然是不同的物质。这种观点也是不合理的，就像容器对于水和宝石都是不可或缺的所依一样，上两种戒律也必须依赖于别解脱戒。如果这样，那么上两种戒律也只能从女性的子宫中产生，就像三界中的生物只能从女性中产生一样。不仅如此，当一位比丘金刚持看到为了利益他人而必须舍弃比丘戒时，他的相续中的比丘戒，你（指比丘戒）因为被舍弃，也会导致上两种戒律也被舍弃，因为你是上两种戒律产生和存在的所依。舍弃所依，就会舍弃能依，就像没有容器，也就没有依赖于它的水和宝石一样。
English
There are two views: one holds that the nature of the vows is different, and the other holds that the nature is the same after the place has changed. Among the views that hold them to be different, there are two types: one believes that the higher subdues the lower, and the other believes that the lower serves as the basis for the higher, in a relationship of support and supported. The first view is that, taking the example of the three—stars, moon, and sun—the higher subdues the lower, residing in the ālaya-vijñāna in the form of latent tendencies, rather than the lower existing in a manifest form. This view is unreasonable. For example, a bodhisattva who possesses the bodhisattva vows, even if he does not manifest the bhikṣu vows, can he be considered a bhikṣu simply because there is a latent tendency of the bhikṣu vows in the ālaya-vijñāna? If so, then all sentient beings should be bhikṣus, because there must be a latent tendency of the bhikṣu vows in the ālaya-vijñāna. Moreover, a person who has relinquished the bhikṣu vows, you (referring to the other party) should also have the bhikṣu vows in your continuum, because there is a following of the latent tendencies of the vows in his mindstream. The example is also inappropriate, because under the sunlight, the light of the moon and stars will be obscured, which would lead to a unique darkness. If the three vows do not contain each other, then apart from the precepts of the higher, the violation of the precepts of the lower will lead to many unique downfalls. The second view is that, just as when clear water without impurities is poured into a clean container, and then an emerald is placed inside, both the container and the water will turn into the color of the jewel, becoming part of the jewel. These three exist in a relationship of support and supported, like different substances. When the higher takes hold of the lower, the lower becomes a part, but is still a different substance. This view is also unreasonable, just as the container is an indispensable basis for both water and jewel, the higher two vows must necessarily rely on the prātimokṣa vows. If so, then the higher two vows can only arise from the womb of a woman, just as beings in the three realms can only arise from women. Moreover, when a bhikṣu vajradhara sees that it is necessary to relinquish the bhikṣu vows for the benefit of others, the bhikṣu vows in his continuum, you (referring to the bhikṣu vows), because you are relinquished, will also cause the higher two vows to be relinquished, because you are the basis for the arising and existence of the higher two vows. Relinquishing the basis will lead to relinquishing the supported, just as without a container, there would be no water and jewel relying on it.
Chinese
这是因为没有（必要）。压制和依赖两者共同的过失是：如果认为三种律仪的自性是各不相同的实体，那么，在一个主要心识的随从中，就会出现三种同类但自性各异的心所同时存在的情况，因此是不合理的。因此，本宗的观点是：三种律仪是所依转变，自性相同而差别相异。这种观点正如宁玛派的续部《幻化网》等所明确阐述的那样，译师绒宗·曲吉桑布、祖尔派的大多数上师，以及通过讲解辩论来阐述此观点的纳顿·森给沃，特别是全知大士智美沃色，以及我们根本上师掘藏法王等宁玛派的智者成就者们，还有萨玛派的大译师仁钦桑布、文殊菩萨大士萨迦班智达及其追随者们，这些新旧派别中无与伦比的智者成就者们的观点是毫无瑕疵的，因此值得智者们赞叹。关于所依转变的方式是：先前的转变为后来的。例如：烦恼任其自然地通过三门造作，将众生束缚于轮回。如果以智慧和慈悲抓住它，进入断除恶行的律仪，就能从恶趣中解脱，成为通往善趣和解脱的因，这就是声闻的别解脱戒。如果以方便和广大智慧之心抓住它，投入到利他事业中，就能成为解脱成大菩提的因，这就是菩萨戒。如果以更加广大的方便智慧完全抓住它，那么就能毫不费力地成就无上大菩提，这就是密咒戒。因此，如《续部百千颂》中所说：“石头的种类各不相同，熔化后产生铁、铜、银。”等等，正如前面所引用的那样，三种种姓的律仪转变为密咒戒的方式。或者，如《秘密行续》中所说：“例如，石头变成铜，铜变成金的形态。在铜的阶段没有石头，变成金后铜就不显现。持明
English
This is because there is no (need). The common fault of both suppression and dependence is: If it is thought that the three vows are of different entities in nature, then, in the retinue of one main mind, there would be three mental factors of the same kind but different in nature existing simultaneously, which is unreasonable. Therefore, the view of this school is: The three vows are the transformation of the basis, the nature is the same, and the differences are different. This view, as clearly stated in the Nyingma school's tantras such as the Guhyagarbha Tantra, is held by translators such as Rongzom Chökyi Zangpo, most of the Zur school's lamas, and Narton Senge Ö, who expounds this view through explanation and debate, especially Omniscient Great Scholar Drimé Özer, and our root guru, Tertön Chökyi Gyalpo, and other Nyingma scholars and accomplished masters, as well as the great translator of the Sarma school, Rinchen Zangpo, and Manjushri, the great being Sakya Paṇḍita and his followers. The views of these incomparable scholars and accomplished masters of the old and new schools are flawless, and therefore worthy of praise by wise individuals. The way of transforming the basis is: the former transforms into the latter. For example: afflictions, when acted upon naturally through the three doors, bind beings to samsara. If one grasps it with wisdom and compassion, and enters into the vows of abandoning misdeeds, one can be liberated from the lower realms and become the cause for higher realms and liberation, which is the Pratimoksha vow of the Shravakas. If one grasps it with the mind of great skillful means and wisdom, and engages in the activities of benefiting others, it becomes the cause for liberation into great Bodhi, which is the Bodhisattva vow. If one completely grasps it with even greater skillful means and wisdom, then one can effortlessly accomplish the unsurpassed great Bodhi, which is the Mantra vow. Therefore, as stated in the *Tantra of Hundreds of Thousands*: "Different kinds of stones, when melted, produce iron, copper, and silver." etc., as quoted earlier, the way the vows of the three lineages transform into the Mantra vow. Or, as stated in the *Secret Conduct Tantra*: "For example, stone turns into copper, copper turns into the form of gold. In the stage of copper, there is no stone, and when it becomes gold, copper does not appear. Vidyadhara
Chinese
对于僧侣来说。 别解脱和菩提心。 二者安住的状态中。 佛陀并未如此宣说。 如是，如洛钦仁桑的概要，以及一切智者所引用于清净车轨中那样解释。譬如，铜矿石熔化后变成铜，对其施以炼金术则变成金。同样，如声闻乘那样以低劣之心所受持的别解脱戒，当被菩萨戒所摄持时，即使舍弃了低劣之心，其自性仍是舍弃损害他者及根本的对治分，它会转变为菩萨的禁戒律仪。当二者皆获得自在时，舍弃未被大平等方便所摄持的庸常显现执着的对治分后，别解脱的舍弃损害他者及根本，以及菩萨戒的利益他者的对治分二者，以物质增长的方式，被大平等的殊胜方便所摄持，转变为密咒的禁戒律仪以及五部总集或遍照的誓言。因此，身语意的行为，即使是同一个基础，也会因方便的大小而转变为越来越高的境界。在持明密咒的自有时期，没有别解脱和菩萨戒这样不同的物质，因为它们已经转变为密咒戒律的物质自性。同样，以一个基础为例，在别解脱、菩萨戒、密咒时期所获得的舍弃杀生的三种心，如前后转变而自性相同。为了他利，想要在无数劫中获得圆满菩提之心，以及想要在一生中获得密咒圆满菩提之心的两种心，如前后转变而自性相同。即便如此，三种戒律的心的不同对治分，并非生、住、灭三者同时发生，因为最初如何受持，便如何安住和消逝，其各自的对治分不会混淆。三合一续部的戒律，虽然前后的戒律与后来的戒律自性相同，但后来的戒律与之前的戒律并非转变后的相同自性，因为后来的戒律比之前的戒律更为广大。并且，当受持后来的戒律时，必须生起许多并非之前戒律物质相续的新的戒律物质。