English
Moreover, in the "Extensive Common Practice," it is said that many Rudras arose and controlled the three realms. Also, it is said that the Buddha was defeated, and Hayagriva was swallowed, etc. These are the beings to be tamed by other Buddhas, and it is to show the greatness of those who tame them, and it is to guide those who are tamed, so there is no contradiction. Furthermore, it is said that after the Buddha's passing, a teacher greater than the Buddha will appear after a hundred years, and at that time, in a previous life, he was the brother of King Trisong Detsen, and there will be many false and continuous lies, and the scriptures and reasoning will be harmed. Although it is impossible for there to be a teacher greater than the Buddha, it is to praise those who are to be tamed, so there is no fault. Not only is the teacher the Second Buddha, but the virtuous friend appears to be more superior than all the Buddhas to everyone, as stated in the sutras. Not being stained by the womb, not having death, and teaching the secret mantra, these three are clearly evident, so who can deny them? In a previous life, he was the brother of King Trisong Detsen, and the teacher Bodhisattva also believes this. Therefore, it is also necessary to understand that these are not mistakes. Because the Victor and the Victor's teachings are limitless, do not lead the tenets to your own narrow understanding. I pray to the scriptures of the past wise ones, which are not to be measured by the wisdom of us children. I confess all faults, and whatever merit is obtained from this, I dedicate it so that all beings may touch enlightenment. Now, when Panchen Shakya Chokden quoted the words of Pal Zhin in the "Good Explanation Golden Needle," Kyabje Chokyi Gyaltsen saw the "Good Explanation Golden Needle" and sent a letter of clarification of doubts to Panchen, called "Good Explanation Opening the Door." In response to that letter, Panchen wrote "Definitive Meaning Clear Mirror" and sent it back, and now we will discuss this collection. Among them, Panchen himself did not prohibit the Nyingma school in the "Golden Needle." If there is no prohibition, what is the reason for quoting the words of Pal Zhin? In response to this, it is divided into two aspects. The first aspect is, in the root of the "Three Vows Treatise," it says: All the conventional truths of the Nyingma school. And also, in the new and old secret mantras, etc., there are some cases where the name of the Nyingma school is mentioned and used as a basis for discussion. We
Chinese
在噶的《金刚橛》书信集中，更不用说对新旧教法是否为正法进行区分了。不仅从未提及“宁玛”这个词，而且在问答中，噶瓦洛扎瓦等将某些法说成是污秽邪法的诸多说法，如果那样成立，就会列出许多过于极端的过失，并写道：在被认为是翻译成藏文的续部中，也有如同佛语一样的论典。对于如此清楚地阐述自己的观点却不加以思考，那些未加入宗派的在家众念诵着巴丹所说的那些话语，而那些自诩为宗派人士的演说家们，有些人不加思索地随声附和，或者有些演说家先存着挑拨离间的想法，不思考根本经典中有什么，只对空洞的言辞进行重复。总的来说，解释其含义时，简要地表达了他自己的观点。通过三律仪分别的观点如何，巴丹提出责难的原因，以及对该责难应如何取舍这四个方面进行阐述，他自己的观点是：区分被称为新旧的教法和个人，不能承认两者中的任何一个人是无误的，两种教法都承认是无误的，因为个人可能有错误，而教法没有错误是相同的。如果不是这样，如果宁玛派的教法是错误的，那么噶、觉等翻译的三藏，行、续、瑜伽等在早期弘传时期出现的翻译教法，特别是无上瑜伽部的密集金刚、月密明点、佛陀平等和合等都会变成非法，因为这些是宁玛派十八部密续的主要部分，并且因为解释说许多被称为宁玛派的教法都是基于这三个根本而产生的。特别是，如果金刚橛法不是正法，那么这些法既有印度原本，又有合格译师的翻译，而且具有辨别力的乔丹热绕和布顿仁波切等人都无可辩驳地认为不将有争议的续部纳入续部总集，这将会造成损害。
English
In the ordinary letters of Ga's "Vajrakila," let alone distinguishing between the new and old doctrines as to whether they are Dharma or not. Not only does the word "Nyingma" never appear, but in both the questions and answers, many statements by Gö Lotsawa and others that certain teachings are impure and heretical, if those were valid, would lead to the enumeration of many extremely excessive faults, and it is written: Among those considered to be tantras translated into Tibetan, there are also treatises like the Buddha's words. Without contemplating this clear statement of one's own view, when laypeople who have not joined a sect recite the words made by Palden, some speakers who claim to be sectarians also either echo whatever they hear without thinking, or some speakers first harbor the intention to sow discord between one and another, and without considering what is in the root text, they only repeat empty words. In general, when explaining its meaning, he briefly expresses his own view. He explains through four aspects: how the view of the Three Vows Distinction is, the reason for Palden's accusation, and how to accept or reject that accusation. His own view is: distinguishing between the teachings and individuals called new and old, one cannot acknowledge either of the two individuals as infallible. Both teachings are acknowledged as infallible, because it is the same that individuals may have errors and teachings do not have errors. If it is not so, if the Nyingma teachings are erroneous, then the Tripitaka translated by Ka, Chok, etc., the translated teachings that appeared in the early propagation period such as Action, Conduct, Yoga Tantras, and especially the Anuttarayoga Tantras such as Guhyasamaja, Chandra-guhya-bindu, Buddha-samyoga, etc., would become non-Dharma, because these are the main parts of the Eighteen Tantras of the Nyingma school, and because it is explained that many teachings known as Nyingma arose based on these three roots. In particular, if Vajrakila is not Dharma, then these have both Indian originals and translations by qualified translators, and discerning Choeden Rigral and Buton Rinpoche, etc., have indisputably stated that controversial tantras are not included in the collection of tantras, which would cause harm.
Chinese
若。并且，在藏地，对早期翻译的见解和行为产生了很多错误的理解，后来由于变成了争论的焦点，因此将以前的正确与不正确的见解和行为都称为宁玛派。同样，后来从印度翻译过来的，确定是论著的那些，以及许多藏人对此进行模仿，将来源追溯到印度并附加的经续论著，也都被称为萨玛派。因此，被称为宁玛派密续的法，不一定是宁玛派密续；同样，被称为萨玛派的经和论著的法，也不一定都是可靠的。并且，莲花生大师本人，以及他的证悟成就的弟子们，为了将堪能之士安置于持明者的地位，宣说了与之相应的本尊、咒语和见解的次第。通过修持这些，涌现了很多证悟成就者，并且由于将与此相应的口耳传承心要记录下来，因此产生了被称为宁玛派的完全清净的法。如果对这些进行正确的分析，它们完全具备论著的特征，正如所说：谁完全掌握了胜者的教法，没有散乱，是智者的讲述，与获得解脱的道路相一致，那也应像圣者一样顶戴。因为具备这些特征，莲花生大师所说的论著，就被认为是与佛陀的教言没有区别，例如至尊弥勒的五法，以及时轮摄略续，及其释疏无垢光等。他的安住于持明者果位的弟子们所说的话也与此相同，即使不是佛陀的真实教言，也不是印度堪布所著的论著，但对于胜义和共义成就的事业不会有错谬，例如至尊米拉日巴和萨迦班智达等人的论著。即使不是从印度翻译过来的真实的佛经和论著，也能见到它们在非常隐秘之处不会欺骗人，例如被称为医学四续的那些。
English
Ro. Furthermore, in Tibet, many incorrect understandings arose regarding the views and practices of the early translations, which later became a point of contention. Therefore, both the correct and incorrect views and practices of the past were labeled as Nyingma. Similarly, those texts that were definitely translated from India later, and many Tibetan imitations of them, attributing their origin to India and adding them to sutras and tantras, were also called Sarma. Therefore, a dharma that is said to be a Nyingma tantra is not necessarily a Nyingma tantra; likewise, a dharma that is said to be a Sarma sutra and treatise is not necessarily reliable. Moreover, Guru Padmasambhava himself, and his accomplished disciples, in order to establish suitable individuals in the position of vidyadhara, taught the appropriate deities, mantras, and stages of view. By practicing these, many accomplished individuals emerged, and because the oral transmissions corresponding to this were written down, the completely pure dharma known as Nyingma arose. If these are analyzed correctly, they fully possess the characteristics of treatises, as it is said: Whoever completely masters the teachings of the Victorious One, without distraction, is the speech of the wise, consistent with the path to liberation, that too should be accepted with reverence like the words of a sage. Because these characteristics are complete, the treatises spoken by Guru Padmasambhava are considered to be no different from the words of the Buddha, such as the Five Dharmas of Lord Maitreya, the Abridged Kalachakra Tantra, and its commentary, the Vimalaprabha, and so on. The words spoken by his disciples who abide in the state of vidyadhara are also the same; even if they are not the actual words of the Buddha, nor treatises composed by Indian abbots, they are unerring in the activities of supreme and common accomplishments, such as the treatises of Lord Milarepa and Sakya Pandita, and so on. Even if they are not the actual translated scriptures and treatises from India, it is seen that they do not deceive in very hidden places, such as those known as the Four Medical Tantras.
Chinese
贡钦果沃的亲传弟子仲聂绕本巴钦波说，这些词语大多被宁玛派的经文当作藏文著作，因此推崇宁玛派。他著有《三戒论疏·善说金针》，似乎从根本上否定了三戒的差别。莲花生大师能调伏的，他却不能调伏。医方明和毫不颠倒地阐释成佛之道的因，这两者之间没有可比性。说佛陀无垢的教言不是佛语，这是舍法的重大罪业。他还著有论述三戒差别的著作《善说妙光》，作为对《金针》的回应。此外，班禅说，即使密咒的词语与印度的词语不一致，也不会妨碍密咒成就，因为密咒是由具有加持能力的圣者所造。例如，至尊圣者印度所造的各种缘起咒。如是说： “若以自语作表示， 密咒之果亦能成。” 又说： “任何传承之某些， 秘密真言偶造作， 此等彼之主威力， 彼说智者趣入故。” 因此，以经之名安立，由藏人所造者，并非全为邪法，因为与清净的论典不相违。又说，即使密咒不是梵文，也不会妨碍由具有加持能力的圣者所造。因为能见到所缘的效力显现，并且将藏地的神鬼纳入坛城，即使因此成立并非源自印度，也不能成立密咒不是清净之法。此外，金刚橛以及由此衍生的秘密真言之法，是为了调伏藏地的人和非人而宣说的。例如，为了调伏的对象，宣说了属于印度的密咒，以及诸神之中，在某地流传的诸神、龙族、鬼神众的陀罗尼、密咒和修法次第等。并非真正的佛语，而是藏人所造，应当修习。
English
Then, Drungne Rawoenpa Chenpo, a direct disciple of Kunkhyen Go Wo, said, "These words are mostly regarded as Tibetan treatises in the Nyingma tradition, thus upholding the Nyingma tradition. He composed 'The Commentary on the Three Vows: The Golden Needle of Good Explanation,' which seems to fundamentally negate the distinctions of the three vows. Those who can be subdued by Guru Padmasambhava cannot be subdued by him. There is no comparison between the medical tantras and the causes that unerringly show the path to enlightenment. Saying that the Buddha's immaculate words are not the Buddha's teachings is a great act of abandoning the Dharma." He also wrote a treatise establishing the distinctions of the three vows called 'The Good Explanation: Light of Fire,' as a response to 'The Golden Needle.' Furthermore, Panchen said, "Even if the words of mantras do not correspond to the words of India, it does not contradict the accomplishment of mantras, because the mantras are made by those who possess the power of blessing. For example, like the various auspicious verses composed by the venerable Indian masters." It is also said: "If one makes a sign with one's own language, The fruit of mantra can also be accomplished." And: "Whatever lineage some Secret mantras may create, These are the main power of that, Because it is said that the wise enter." Therefore, those composed by Tibetans, named as tantras, are not all false Dharma, because they do not contradict pure treatises. It is also said that even if the mantras are not in Sanskrit, it does not contradict that they are made by those who possess the power of blessing. Because one sees the power of what is focused on manifest, and even if it is established that the gods and demons of Tibet are included in the mandala and have their mantras, and thus it is not of Indian origin, it cannot be established that the mantras are not pure Dharma. Furthermore, these teachings of Vajrakilaya and the secret mantras derived from it are spoken for the sake of taming the people and non-humans of Tibet. For example, for the sake of taming beings, mantras belonging to India are spoken, and many sequences of dharanis, mantras, and methods of accomplishment of the assemblies of gods, nagas, and spirits that are famous in that and that place among the gods arise. They are not the actual words of the Buddha, but composed by Tibetans, and should be practiced.