Chinese
如果我不能成就殊胜，那就太过分了。因为从续部中所说的本尊修法和坛城仪轨等，都是班智达和藏族上师们编纂的，并被付诸实践。如是说。难道这些是把宁玛派的续部作为论典来成立的依据吗？像这样仅仅引用这些有什么必要呢？因为在颇章西瓦沃和俄的《分别书》中，被认为是具有污垢的邪法。而且，巴珍认为所有被称为宁玛派的都不是佛法。所以，没有比这更好的回答，因此写下了这些。还有，如果自认为是真正的旧密咒士，就必须承认其特点主要是见解。一般来说，如果信奉宁玛派，特别是心部，那么见解就应远离执着，禅修应远离作意，行为应远离取舍，果应远离希疑。如果不喜欢这些，那么对心部的承认就只是表面上的。如果喜欢这些，那么听到这些分类就好像要舍弃生命一样的人很多，那么如何进行破立呢？我则很自豪地承认这四种法。也就是说，见、修、果这三者与龙树和无著二者的车轨的究竟传统相符。对于行为的方式，其他人说：没有取舍不是行为，那是见解的分类。对于这种说法的回答是，虽然名言识的意义上有取舍，但如果被见解所摄持，就不会执着于取舍的相。特别是，因为信奉巴珍的宗派，所以即使说被见解摄持时也不执着于相，但是被见解摄持的时候不叫做禅修，也不叫做行为。还有，在信奉心部时，是否信奉暂时显现的一切都是自心？如果不信奉，那么如何彻底阐述心部？我是这样承认的，如果不承认，不要说九乘，甚至与经部以上的宗义都相违。因此，我不承认他显现的色身二者是真正的佛，并且我承认在佛的自显现中不会显现世俗的显现。还有，如果一定要信奉心部和幻化，那么在基础时不能用世俗量来成立，并且在果位时众生的业力显现有多少，
English
If I cannot accomplish the supreme, it would be too extreme. Because the deity practices and mandala rituals spoken of in the tantras are compiled by Indian pandits and Tibetan lamas and put into practice. So it is said. Are these the scriptural citations that establish the Nyingma tantras as treatises? What is the need to cite only these? Because in the 'Separation Letters' of Phobrang Zhiwa Ö and Ngö, they are considered to be defiled, false dharmas. Moreover, Palzin considers everything called Nyingma to be non-dharma. Therefore, there is no better answer than this, so I have written this. Furthermore, if one considers oneself to be a true ancient mantra practitioner, one must acknowledge that the main characteristic is the view. In general, if one adheres to the Nyingma tradition, especially the Mind Division, then the view should be free from clinging, meditation should be free from mental fabrication, conduct should be free from acceptance and rejection, and the result should be free from hope and fear. If one does not like this, then the acknowledgment of the Mind Division is merely superficial. If one likes this, then many people act as if they are about to give up their lives when they hear these categories. How then should one engage in refutation and establishment? I am proud to acknowledge these four dharmas. That is, the three—view, meditation, and result—are in accordance with the ultimate tradition of the chariot of both Nagarjuna and Asanga. Regarding the mode of conduct, others say: 'Without acceptance and rejection, it is not conduct; it is a classification of view.' The answer to this is: although there is acceptance and rejection in the sense of the nominal consciousness, if it is grasped by the view, one does not cling to the characteristics of acceptance and rejection. In particular, because one adheres to the system of Palzin, even if one says that one does not cling to characteristics when grasped by the view, the time when one is grasped by the view is not called meditation, nor is it called conduct. Furthermore, when adhering to the Mind Division, does one adhere to the idea that everything that appears temporarily is one's own mind? If one does not adhere to it, how can one thoroughly explain the Mind Division? I acknowledge it in this way. If one does not acknowledge it, not to mention the nine vehicles, it contradicts all the tenets of the Sutra school and above. Therefore, I do not acknowledge that the two form bodies that appear to others are actual Buddhas, and I acknowledge that conventional appearances do not arise in the self-appearance of the Buddha. Furthermore, if one must adhere to the Mind Division and illusion, then it cannot be established by conventional valid cognition at the ground stage, and at the result stage, how many sentient beings' karmic appearances...
Chinese
佛陀的智慧不显现世俗谛。 这句话您是否赞同？ 如果不赞同，那么对心类和幻术的坚定信念就会产生矛盾。 我是这样承认的。 对此，其他人说：如果世俗谛不能通过量成立，那就是诽谤因果。 在禅定中什么都不想，这是和尚的观点。 如果佛陀的自显现中不显现世俗谛，那就会变成不是一切智者。 这样的过失是自己承受还是避免？ 如果承受，那就是从幻术和心类中脱离。 如果避免这个过失，那么用什么教理和理证来避免？ 我是这样避免这个过失的：所有的世俗谛都是错觉，没有进入实相，所以不能通过量成立。 所有的作意都是执着相的分别念，所以不能与禅定智慧成为一体。 佛陀没有无明，所以不显现世俗谛，因为世俗谛只是有境者虚假显现的行境。 这样解释。 如果没有这种建立宗义的方式，如何持有宁玛派的法？ 我仅仅承认我是宁玛派是不够的。 对此，后来的经藏读者说：这样的宗义是新出现的。 虽然他们这样说，但普遍来说，世俗谛的含义是通过量，特别是解释为有多少就能知道多少的智慧。 这是宗喀巴大师撰写《根本慧论释》之后才有的说法。 在那之前，无论贤愚，都一致认为世俗谛是虚假显现，是迷惑之心的所得。 不用说宁玛派，在真正的禅定状态中，远离作意是所有无误的译师、学者和禅修者的著作中都显而易见的。 佛陀的智慧不显现世俗谛，这就像风一样在所有读者中流传的《入中论》中清楚地存在着，如果这被称为新出现的宗义，那么旧的宗义在哪里？与其展示道理，不如说格鲁派的大师们在晚年毫不犹豫地追随他们所发现的宗义，然后对持有旧宗义的人说这是新出现的，这只是随便说说而已。
English
The wisdom of the Buddha does not perceive the conventional truth. Do you agree with this statement or not? If you do not agree, then the firm conviction in mind and illusion will be contradictory. I acknowledge it as such. To this, others say: If the conventional truth is not established by valid cognition, then it is slandering cause and effect. Not thinking of anything in meditative equipoise is the view of the Heshang. If the conventional truth does not appear in the Buddha's self-appearance, then it will become not omniscient. Do you bear or avoid this fault yourself? If you bear it, then you are out of illusion and mind. If you avoid this fault, then how do you avoid it with scripture and reason? I avoid that fault in this way: all conventional truths are illusory appearances and have not entered into reality, so they are not established by valid cognition. All mental activities are conceptualizations of grasping at characteristics, so they do not abide as one with meditative wisdom. Since the Buddha has no ignorance, the object of conventional truth does not appear, because the object of conventional truth is only the domain of the false appearance of the subject. This is how it is explained. If there is no such way of establishing a tenet, how can one hold the Nyingma Dharma? It is not enough to merely claim, "I am a Nyingmapa." To this, later readers of the scriptures say: Such a tenet is newly arisen. Although they say so, generally, the meaning of conventional truth is valid cognition, and particularly, it is explained as the wisdom that knows as much as there is to know. This is the language since Je Tsongkhapa composed the commentary on the Root Text. Before that, all, whether wise or foolish, agreed that conventional truth is a false appearance, the attainment of a deluded mind. Not to mention the Nyingma school, in the actual state of meditative equipoise, being free from mental activity is evident in the writings of all the infallible translators, scholars, and meditators. That the wisdom of the fully enlightened Buddha does not perceive the conventional truth is clearly present in the Entering the Middle Way, a text as famous as the wind among all readers. If this is called a newly arisen tenet, then where is an old system? Rather than showing reason, the great Gelugpas, at the end of their lives, unhesitatingly run after the tenet they have found, and then say that it is newly arisen to those who hold the old system, which is merely speaking randomly.
Chinese
萨迦派和《三戒论》中，对宁玛派只有少许考察，因为新派的错误更多，如受持别解脱戒直至菩提，不按中观宗的方式受持菩萨戒，不允许修持自他交换，未经灌顶修持密法，将现有的善根回向法界，觉沃派的发心与觉沃的意旨相违背，以仪轨受持胜义菩提心，自称是那若巴的传承者却不修持生圆二次第，以金刚亥母的加持开启法门等等，正如新派中存在的诸多邪法并非新派之法一样，宁玛派中存在的诸多邪法也并非宁玛派之法。因此，禁止这些邪法并不会导致新旧教派的对立。总的来说，那些将宁玛派非正法强加于宁玛派，并以理证驳斥，然后声称已经破斥了宁玛派的人，是因为他们自己愚昧，执着于邪法并付诸实践，并将此执着和认可视为宁玛派之法而产生的恶分别念。例如，正确的“结合解脱”之义是将能取所取的分别念解脱，并结合于法界。然而，那些不理解此义，将由贪嗔而生的结合解脱视为正法并加以宣扬的人，当他们被驳斥时，却像发出哀嚎一样，声称宁玛派被破斥了。此外，《三戒论》中提到了新派的错误和对宁玛派的考察方式，最后说：“这清楚地表明了教主萨迦班智达的观点，因此无法在此论著中隐瞒。”以及他自己的观点，正如他所说：“以至尊萨迦班智达的论著为依据，讲述正直之语时，愿此语不会成为某些人的眼中钉。”虽然如此说，但如果正直地讲述《三戒论》的内容，那也成了宁玛派的显明者，这是他自己也承认的。还有，“宁玛派的所有法，无需努力从印度翻译，仅凭莲花生大师化身所说即可成立。即使后来从印度翻译的咒语和术语不一致，但在殊胜和共同成就上，也不会欺骗
English
In the Sakya school and the "Three Vows," there is only a slight examination of the Nyingma school, because the New schools have more errors, such as taking the Pratimoksha vows until enlightenment, not taking the Bodhisattva vows according to the Madhyamaka school, not allowing the practice of exchanging self and others, practicing secret mantras without empowerment, dedicating existing virtues to the Dharmadhatu, the Bodhicitta of the Kadampa school contradicting the intention of Atisha, taking the ultimate Bodhicitta with rituals, claiming to be the lineage holders of Naropa but not practicing the generation and completion stages, opening the Dharma gate with the blessings of Vajravarahi, etc. Just as the many wrong teachings in the New schools are not the Dharma of the New schools, the many wrong teachings in the Nyingma school are also not the Dharma of the Nyingma school. Therefore, prohibiting these wrong teachings will not lead to the opposition of the New and Old schools. In general, those who impose non-Dharma of the Nyingma school on the Nyingma school, refute it with logic, and then claim that they have refuted the Nyingma school, are doing so because they themselves are ignorant, clinging to wrong teachings and putting them into practice, and regarding this clinging and recognition as the Dharma of the Nyingma school, which arises from evil discrimination. For example, the correct meaning of "union and liberation" is to liberate the conceptual thoughts of the grasper and the grasped, and unite with the Dharmadhatu. However, those who do not understand this meaning and regard the union and liberation arising from attachment and aversion as Dharma and propagate it, when they are refuted, they cry out as if wailing, claiming that the Nyingma school has been refuted. Furthermore, the "Three Vows" mentions the errors of the New schools and the methods of examining the Nyingma school, and finally says, "This clearly shows the view of the Lord of Dharma Sakya Pandita, so it cannot be concealed in this treatise." And his own view, as he said, "Based on the treatise of the venerable Sakya Pandita, when speaking honest words, may these words not become a thorn in the side of some." Although he said so, if the content of the "Three Vows" is spoken honestly, it also becomes a clarifier of the Nyingma school, which he himself admits. Also, "All the Dharma of the Nyingma school does not need to be translated from India with effort, it is enough to be established by what the emanation body of Padmasambhava said. Even if the mantras and terms translated from India later are inconsistent, they will not deceive in supreme and common achievements,