English
is the Dharma of... Sapan Pandita did not think that these did not exist in India. Although it is so, the view spoken of in the Kunjed Gyalpo, even though it is correct from the opposite of views, if the conduct aspect of the holders of that Dharma is not combined with practice, and abandoning practice is sufficient, and if it is made into a tenet and practice, then it has become the religion of the Chinese monk. This is definitely the view of this treatise. If the Dzogchen religion is explained in that way, Pal Dzin would say: "Especially the Hwashang tenet, mixed with the garland of oral instruction views." And, "The heart commitment oral instruction view garland of King Nyugra Nyingpo, later was also transformed into the Dharma of Dzogchen by its holders." There is no certainty that those faults will not occur. As it is said: "The Dzogchen of the Chinese style." is also for thinking about that meaning. Regarding "The Dzogchen of the Chinese style" being the Dharma of Hwashang, all the commentators have not thoroughly investigated, which is true. Pal Dzin says that the oral instruction view garland is mixed with the Hwashang tenet itself. The Kunjed is not called the oral instruction view garland. If the view of the Kunjed is correct from the opposite of views, then showing the separation of view and conduct is not a Buddhist tenet, so it is practiced without effort. Also, if that is the case, then what is the reason that the view of the Kunjed Gyalpo's system is not mistaken? If the Kunjed's system requires the accumulation of merit as a companion to that view, then that directly contradicts the tantra itself. If that is not its system, then hasn't it become the religion of the Chinese monk, and the system called the view of upliftment and the path of suddenness? Answer: There are two here: showing that the view is not mistaken, and because it is said that there is no conventional Dharma, it cannot be established as slandering cause and effect. First, the conventional object of grasping and grasper are non-dual, and acknowledging that the non-dual wisdom itself is the nature Dharmakaya, the Dharmadhatu wisdom, the Vajra of Mind, the Joyful Vajra, etc., is the ultimate meaning of the last turning of the wheel of Dharma, and the later tantras also consider it the ultimate meaning, and the object of view and the ultimate truth.
Chinese
如果承认了某事物，就不会有其他的事物存在，因为圣者们以各自的自证智慧所体验的事物，不会承认除此之外的其他事物。这本身就被称为大圆满法中的《普作王》。如是说：在《喜金刚》中说：讲者是我，法也是我，具有自之眷属的听者是我，世间和超世间是我，世间导师和所证悟者是我。以及，有和无之事物是我，一切众生从我而生，三处（三界）也从我而生，我遍布这一切，未见众生之自性之外的其他。以及，从珍宝心之外，没有佛，也没有众生。等等，广泛宣说的内容，以及大圆满法的安住方式，都显现为一体。第二，如果按照此法的观点，宣说积累福德资粮和存在道地的次第，那么与对众生宣说本自具足的佛陀，以及宣说世俗和胜义二者无别相违背。因为在极瑜伽甚深瑜伽大圆满中说：说有因和果者，不具大圆满的证悟之义。如果说胜义和世俗是二者，那就是诽谤之语，因为他没有证悟二无别。过去现在未来诸佛的证悟也是，不见到二，而是证悟为一体。这样不是已经明确宣说了吗？如果这样问，回答是，在那里并没有说没有世俗的法，也没有说只有普作一个。仅仅因为这样就成立了不需要福德资粮，那就会变成，外道经部宗说，涅槃是唯一的真谛。以及《喜金刚》中说，没有修，也没有修行者，没有本尊，也没有咒语。也因此会变成那样教导。如果说那个观点也是这样教导的，那是不对的。因为在无戏论的自性中，本尊和咒语真实存在。这样解释的缘故。真实的回答是，因为在错觉的显现中存在，所以不能理解为存在，因为在胜义中不存在，所以能理解为不存在的理由，因此不希望胜义之外的世俗。即使这样，福德资粮
English
If something is acknowledged, there is nothing else besides it, because the noble ones, with their respective self-cognizant wisdom, do not acknowledge anything other than what is experienced. This itself is known as the "All-Creating King" in the Great Perfection teachings. As it is said: In the Hevajra it says: "The speaker is I, the Dharma is also I, the listener with his own retinue is I, the mundane and the supramundane are I, the mundane teacher and the object to be attained are I." And, "The existent and the non-existent are I, all beings arise from me, the three abodes also arise from me, I pervade all this, I do not see any other nature of beings." And, "Outside of the precious mind, there is no Buddha and no sentient being." And so on, all the extensively spoken words, and the way the Great Perfection teachings abide, appear as one. Secondly, if according to this Dharma's view, it is taught that accumulating merit and the stages of the paths exist, then it contradicts the teaching that Buddhahood is spontaneously accomplished in sentient beings, and that conventional and ultimate are non-dual. Because in the Ati Yoga, the exceedingly profound Great Perfection, it says: "He who says there is cause and effect, does not possess the meaning of realizing the Great Perfection. If he says ultimate and conventional are two, that is a word of slander, because he does not realize non-duality. The realization of the Buddhas of the three times is also, not seeing two, but realizing as one arrangement." Isn't that clearly stated? If you ask, the answer is, it is not said there that conventional Dharmas do not exist, nor is it said that only the All-Creating One exists. If it is established that merit is not needed just because of that, then it would become like the Sautrantikas saying, "Nirvana is the only truth." And in the Hevajra it says, "There is no meditation, nor a meditator, there is no deity, nor mantra." It would also become taught in that way. If you say that that view also teaches that, it is not so. Because in the nature of non-elaboration, deities and mantras truly exist. Because that is how it is explained. The real answer is, because it exists in the appearance of delusion, it cannot be understood as existing, and because it does not exist in the ultimate, it can be understood as not existing, therefore, conventionality apart from the ultimate is not desired. Even so, the accumulation of merit
Chinese
不应舍弃，因为在世俗迷惑的显现中，积累广大的福德资粮是不可或缺的。如果是在迷惑的显现中，那样积累就没有必要了吗？不是的，因为没有那样积累，就不会出现迷惑显现的化身和报身。或许不迷惑的导师法身就足够了，迷惑显现的导师要做什么呢？只要无明的睡眠没有醒来，法身的导师就不足够，因为无明的睡眠醒来后，各种色身的导师显现在眼识中，他宣说佛法的声音在耳识中响起等等都不会发生。只要无明的睡眠没有醒来，就无法直接见到导师法身，所以必须显现众生自显所摄的两种色身的显现，而这种显现依赖于诸佛往昔的愿望和所化众生各自积累的福德资粮。如是说： “实义精华无为法，大瑜伽士所见者，本来自性清净坛城中，因生果之天神坛城及，以近修四支圆满后，视作收放之自性任运成。” 如是所说与《喜金刚》中所说： “无戏论之自性中，天与真言真实住。” 意义相符而成立。如是说。如此写下这些，是因为班禅仁波切以此观点认为，宁玛派的续部虽然被当作藏地的论典，但为了证明那些意义没有错谬，已经出现了很多获得共同和殊胜成就的例子。如果是这样，那么诸佛的教言也没有比这更殊胜的教导，所以有智慧的人会理解为清净的教法，并且因为这成为了对俄和巴珍等所作辩论的驳斥而写下。班禅对以上所说的那些论述进行观察，在恰巴法王看来是这样的：在此大圆满心部者，除了心之外没有法，但显现不认为是心，
English
It should not be abandoned, because in the appearance of mundane delusion, accumulating a vast collection of merit is indispensable. If it is in the appearance of delusion, is there no need to accumulate in that way? No, because without such accumulation, the two forms of the teacher in the appearance of delusion, the enjoyment body and the emanation body, would not arise. Perhaps the non-deluded teacher, the Dharmakaya, is sufficient, but what is the purpose of the teacher in the appearance of delusion? As long as the sleep of ignorance has not awakened, the teacher of the Dharmakaya alone is not sufficient, because after the sleep of ignorance awakens, the various forms of the teacher's Rupakaya appearing to the eye consciousness, and the sound of him teaching the Dharma resounding in the ear consciousness, etc., would not occur. As long as the sleep of ignorance has not awakened, one cannot directly see the teacher's Dharmakaya, so the appearance of the two Rupakayas gathered by sentient beings' own appearances must arise, and this arising depends on the previous aspirations of the Buddhas and the accumulation of merit by each individual to be trained. As it is said: "The real essence of meaning is uncreated, Which is seen by the great yogis, In the mandala of originally pure self-nature, And the mandala of deities of cause and effect, Having perfected the four branches of approach and accomplishment, One views it as spontaneously accomplished, the nature of gathering and dispersing." This statement, and what is said in the Hevajra Tantra: "In the nature without elaboration, The deities and mantras truly abide." Are established as having the same meaning. Thus it is said. Writing this much is because Panchen Rinpoche, with this view, believes that although the Nyingma tantras are regarded as Tibetan treatises, many instances of attaining common and supreme accomplishments have occurred to prove that those meanings are not mistaken. If that is the case, then the teachings of the Buddhas do not teach anything more excellent than this, so those with intelligence will understand it as a pure teaching, and it is written because it has become a refutation of the arguments made by Ngok and Paljin, etc. Chapa Chökyi Drakpa seems to have examined those statements made by Panchen above in this way: Here, the Dzogchen Semde school, although there is no Dharma apart from the mind, does not consider appearances to be mind,
Chinese
心与心所非一性，世俗虽无显现法，实则不成乃错觉。本来清净之心性中，无有错觉与非错觉。譬如食用曼陀罗，显现虽为错觉相，然彼非即曼陀罗。如是心之显现亦，非心如日光之光芒，亦如非是真正之日。若不视二种色身为，即是成佛之状态，则报身胜者六道众，化身释迦牟尼佛者，至今尚未获得成佛耶？此于何经何续中所说？虽欲一切皆为心，然胜者之意与身，分开心即是佛陀，身却非是佛陀之，此种宗派真稀奇。不作意之等持中，遮止二取之禅定与，自解脱任运安住二者，相似相异乃有无之地。若为后者则与我等合，前者乃是和尚之流。心识自处乃错觉相，舍弃错觉之分别念后，所生之智慧我等不欲。此即名为轮回也，此即名为涅槃也。舍弃轮回于他处，涅槃实则无有也。如是所说至尊萨迦派，轮回涅槃无别与，未作真实相违背，于正等觉佛陀者，虽不显现虚妄之世俗，然如镜中之影像般，诸法皆明然不杂，无有分别念全然知。此乃心之宗派也。如所有尽所有知见之，莫作无二智之想。普光与莲花者，十三金刚持之位，乃密意语之流派，说为不可量之语。此与于藏地所合之续，成立为法此相违也，若成立为法则彼法，若不成量即彼法，除此以外舍弃法耶？此非智者之行径。智者所认定之梵本中，有印度大班智达之释疏。前后中间所翻译之续，立此为藏地所著乃谬误。因此汝较之梵本之风范，更为盛大之喀且大班智达与，智者殊胜解脱译师也。
English
Mind and mental events are not the same. Although phenomena appear as if they exist in relative truth, in reality, they are unreal and illusory. In the very nature of the mind, which is pure from the beginning, there is neither illusion nor non-illusion. For example, although the appearance of having eaten Datura is an illusion, it is not the Datura itself. Similarly, the appearance of the mind is not the mind itself, just as the rays of the sun are not the sun itself. If you do not consider these two forms of the Rupakaya to be Buddhahood itself, then have the Sambhogakaya Conquerors of the six realms and the Nirmanakaya Shakyamuni Buddha not yet attained Buddhahood? Where is this taught in the Sutras and Tantras? While claiming that everything is mind, you separate the minds and bodies of the Conquerors, saying that the mind is the Buddha, but the body is not. What a strange philosophical system this is! In non-conceptual Samadhi, the meditation that prevents dualistic grasping and the two, self-liberation and letting go, are similar and different, a place of confusion. If it is the latter, then we agree. The former is the way of the Hwashang. Conceptual thought is an illusion in its own place. We do not want the wisdom that arises from abandoning that illusory thought of conceptualization. This is what is called Samsara, and this is what is called Nirvana. There is no Nirvana elsewhere apart from abandoning Samsara. Thus spoke the venerable Sakya, whose view of Samsara and Nirvana being inseparable did not directly contradict the Buddha, the perfectly enlightened one. Although false relative truths do not appear to him, like reflections in a mirror, all phenomena are clear and unmixed, and he knows everything clearly without conceptualization. This is the philosophical system of the mind. Do not think that the knowledge of all that exists and how it exists is without two knowledges. The position of the ever-radiant and lotus-bearing, the thirteen Vajradhara, is the tradition of speaking the Secret Essence, so the statement that it is not valid is contradictory. This and the Tantras combined in Tibet, the establishment of Dharma is contradictory, if it is established as Dharma, then that Dharma, if it is not valid, then what Dharma is abandoned other than that? This is not the way of the wise. In the Indian texts recognized by the wise, there are commentaries by great Indian scholars. The assertion that the Tantras translated in the past, present, and future are Tibetan compositions is mistaken. Therefore, the style of the Indian texts from you is greater than that of the Kashmiri great scholar and the excellent translator Tharpa Lotsawa.