Chinese
由可靠的量已经阐明。总的来说，仅仅因为这位导师和禅定法师之间发生了争论，就认为他和他的宗教是污秽的，这是不可能的，因为没有损害意义的可靠的量。如果导师禅定法师直接展示了未经整合的法界的居住方式，并且一开始就向初学者展示，认为这有点错误，那只是一个人和一个上师根据弟子的根器来展示佛法的方式可能会有些错误，但那些人的法并非全部都有缺陷，因为这仅仅被确定为是个人智力上的缺陷。此外，由于与每个受教者的智力水平不符，大乘的见、修、行，以及较低层次的道，如果无法被他们理解，从而产生争论，这是法性使然。正如声闻乘的人认为大乘不是佛语，而在《经庄严论》中证明其为佛语，以及在许多印度论典中证明密宗为佛语一样。月称论师坚持自性空的空性中观，旃扎·果弥坚持唯识中观的立场，并进行了长达七年的辩论等，就像不能因为证明了某个论典有缺陷就将其抛弃一样。总的来说，在西藏这里，一旦出现像谣言一样的普遍说法，就没有机会用公正的头脑进行详细的调查研究。普遍存在着一种盲目追随谣言的传统，因此，即使是那些被称为智者的人，也受到了这种影响，或者那些习惯于后来推论的人，将禅定法师的宗教，以及所有与之相关的术语，都视为是虚假的、污秽的宗教，甚至听到也要捂住耳朵。实际上，很多人似乎都在努力承担起抛弃大乘佛法的第六和第九根本堕罪。然而，在等持中不作分别念，这是所有大乘经典和续部的共同观点，对于智者和愚者来说都是显而易见的。例如，在《圣集经》中说：不住于色，不住于受；不住于想，不住于行；不住于识。
English
It has been clarified by reliable evidence. In general, just because a dispute arose between this teacher and the meditation master, it is not possible to consider him and his religion as defiled, because there is no reliable evidence that harms the meaning. If the teacher, the meditation master, directly shows the way of dwelling in the unintegrated Dharmadhatu, and shows it to the beginner from the very beginning, thinking that it is a bit wrong, that is just one person and one lama's way of teaching the Dharma may be a bit wrong depending on the disciple's capacity, but the Dharma of those people does not become entirely flawed, because it is only determined to be a defect in the individual's intelligence. Moreover, since it does not match the intellectual level of each trainee, it is natural that disputes arise because the view, meditation, conduct, and lower paths of the Great Vehicle are not understood by them. Just as the Hearers consider the Great Vehicle not to be the Buddha's word, and it is proven to be the Buddha's word in the Ornament of Sutras, and the Secret Mantra is proven to be the Buddha's word in many Indian treatises. Chandrakirti adhered to the Madhyamaka of emptiness of inherent existence, and Chandra Gomi took the side of the Vijnanavada Madhyamaka and debated for seven years, etc., just as it is not permissible to abandon a text after proving it to be flawed. In general, here in Tibet, once a widespread rumor-like statement arises, there is no opportunity to conduct a detailed investigation with an impartial mind. There is a widespread tradition of blindly following rumors, so even those who are known as wise are affected by this, or those who are accustomed to later inferences, consider the religion of the meditation master, and all the religious terms associated with it, to be false and defiled religions, and even cover their ears when they hear it. In reality, many people seem to be striving to take on the sixth and ninth root downfalls of abandoning the Great Vehicle Dharma. However, non-conceptualization in equipoise is the undisputed view of all the Great Vehicle sutras and tantras, and it is clear to both the wise and the foolish. For example, in the Holy Collection Sutra, it says: 'Who does not abide in form, does not abide in feeling; Who does not abide in perception, does not abide in mental formation; Which consciousness does not abide.'
Chinese
是法性安住之理。这是殊胜般若波罗蜜多的行持。如《喜金刚》所说：不以心修习，当修习一切有情。如吉祥持箭足尊所说：心中有害的业，全部皆空寂。获得和接受的事务，任何都不需要。远离勤作，没有暂时突发的因缘。种种显现手印，这视为幻相。如《七百颂般若经》所说：对于任何法，没有可取、可执、可舍，这就是修习般若波罗蜜多。于任何事物不住，那即是修习般若波罗蜜多。于任何事物不作意，那即是修习般若波罗蜜多。如《八千颂》所说：修习般若波罗蜜多，就是不修习任何法。如《 বুদ্ধিমৎ সাগৰ মত》经所说：诸法不作意，特别作意则舍弃。诸法全部平等性，如实了知于心中。如圣者龙树的《修习次第》所说：智慧明觉的见解中，没有生和住。以恒常不分别的明觉，舍弃心和心所后，如自性般安住。如是等等大乘经续及其释论，一致宣说不分别的等持。其体性是超越八识聚之境和有境，远离五蕴的胜观空性。那么，既然说要依靠听闻的智慧，通过如理作意，以思所成的观察，对缘起的真如生起定解，你们舍弃了它，那么分别的智慧也将被舍弃。如果说将一切法确定为无生，声闻乘以分析微尘，大乘以缘起理等大车论师们所阐释的意趣，是为了在后得位对胜观本身的道理生起定解，并且在以教理断除增益时运用，这是需要了解的。等持的对境是离言思议。
English
It is the abiding nature of Dharma. This is the supreme practice of Prajnaparamita. As stated in the Hevajra: Without meditating with the mind, one should meditate on all beings. As stated by the glorious Madanazhunu: Actions harmful to the mind are all empty. There is no need for any activity of gaining and receiving. Free from effort and without temporary, sudden causes, regard the various appearances of mudras as illusions. As stated in the Seven Hundred Prajnaparamita: Not taking, grasping, or abandoning any Dharma is the meditation on Prajnaparamita. Not abiding in anything is the meditation on Prajnaparamita. Not thinking about anything is the meditation on Prajnaparamita. As stated in the Eight Thousand: Meditating on Prajnaparamita is not meditating on any Dharma. As stated in the Sagaramati Sutra: Do not think about Dharmas, and abandon special thoughts. Understand all Dharmas as equal in their true nature. As stated in the Noble Nagarjuna's Stages of Meditation: In the view of wisdom and awareness, there is no birth or abiding. With constant non-conceptual awareness, having abandoned mind and mental factors, abide firmly like self-nature. Thus, the sutras and tantras of the Great Vehicle, along with their commentaries, unanimously proclaim non-conceptual samadhi. Its essence is the emptiness of vipashyana, free from the five aggregates, transcending the objects and subjects of the eight consciousnesses. Now, since it is said that one must rely on the wisdom of hearing, and through proper attention, generate certainty about the suchness of dependent origination through contemplation-born analysis, if you abandon that, then discriminative wisdom will also be abandoned. If it is said that establishing all Dharmas as unborn, the intention explained by the Shravakas through the analysis of atoms, and by the great chariot masters through the reasoning of dependent origination in the Great Vehicle, is for generating certainty in the post-meditation state about the nature of vipashyana itself, and for applying it when cutting off superimpositions with scripture and reason, this is what needs to be understood. The object of samadhi is beyond words, thought, and expression.
Chinese
彼。其自性是超越八识聚的、脱离五蕴的空性胜观之体性。而分别思择是意识，由于意识与法聚合，与有漏的五蕴亲近并相应，因此二者极其相违。后者能以所知的方式理解空性，但若执着于空性，则会成为不尽和生之源，无法斩断一切见解和烦恼之根。如《宝积经》云：“空性之见闻，若有者见未灭，乃不可救之见者，如医所弃之病人。”又云：“圆成实性亦，瑜伽士恒时见，意识之境有者，乃诸能力之系缚。”此谓意识认为一切法皆为空性，并执着于此而修持，则未离空执之念，且与五蕴之流相连，故无缘触及本初之法性。世尊云：“光护，执着于我如须弥山更甚，执着于无我则非如是。”龙树云：“若于空性观错谬，慧小者将自毁。”又云：“何者观空性，彼等说为不可成。”诸如此类已明示。因此，虽分别思择并非胜观，然于后得位，思彼为证悟彼之支分，故以因名立果，以分别思择之智慧称胜观。然若认为凡分别思择皆为胜观，并认为于等持中必无分别思择，以及认为止观双运亦需于心寂止之状态中进行分别思择等，则应详察。以彼等理由，无论以何等美名称呼名相之空性与分别所作之离戏等，皆不过是分别念所安立，故不能成为如实符合胜义谛之状态与体性之修持。圣龙树云：“何者自性非自性，彼乃观察之体性。”
English
That. Its essence is the emptiness that is the nature of vipassanā, free from the five aggregates and transcending the eight consciousness aggregates. Conceptual analysis is the consciousness of mind, which, being gathered by mind and phenomena, is close to and corresponds with the five aggregates that are tainted. Therefore, these two are extremely contradictory. The latter can understand emptiness in the manner of knowable objects, but if one clings to that emptiness, it becomes the source of inexhaustibility and birth, and cannot cut off the root of all views and afflictions. As it is said in the Ornament of Dense Array, "Even the view and hearing of emptiness, if the view of some is not destroyed, is a view that cannot be restored, like a patient abandoned by a doctor." And, "The perfectly established nature, the yogi always sees, the object-possessing consciousness of mind is truly a binding of all abilities." This means that if the consciousness of mind thinks that all phenomena are emptiness and meditates with attachment to it, it is not separated from the mind of clinging to emptiness and is connected with the stream of the five aggregates, so there is no opportunity to touch the original Dharma nature. The Blessed One said, "Light Protector, clinging to self is greater than Mount Meru, but clinging to non-self is not so." Nagarjuna said, "If one views emptiness wrongly, those of small wisdom will destroy themselves." And, "Those who view emptiness are said to be unattainable." These have been made clear. Therefore, although conceptual analysis is not vipassanā, it is considered in the subsequent attainment as a limb that realizes it, so the name of the result is given to the cause, and the wisdom of conceptual analysis is called vipassanā. However, if one thinks that all conceptual analysis is vipassanā, and thinks that there must be no conceptual analysis in samadhi, and that the union of śamatha and vipassanā also requires conceptual analysis in the state of mind being calm, then it should be examined. For those reasons, no matter what beautiful names are used to call the emptiness of names and the fabricated freedom from elaboration, they are only established by conceptual thought, so they cannot become the practice of the state and nature of ultimate truth as they are. The noble Nagarjuna said, "That which is self-nature and non-self-nature is the nature of investigation."
Chinese
不住于意和识，故不追忆过去，不对未来生起骄慢，不对现在生起戏论。此乃三时平等性，三轮完全清净，然众生未能领会，故应令其领会。如是，对众生生起大悲。如是说，故应于远离三时戏论之作意之真如，即本初心性无造作之自性中，平等安住，此乃无上窍诀之要点，应于不散乱中安住，此至关重要。总的来说，虽有许多人以哈香禅师之见为名，于言语中引入诸多增饰，然应以其所有宗义皆能融贯之观点为基础，以辨析过失之方式进行辩驳。如《巴协》中所载，此乃早期教法兴盛时期所藏之伏藏，故后世论者于《巴协》等处，将彼之部分观点作为先例而复述，然此不过是徒劳之举，若未亲见所破之宗义，则《巴协》等处所载，亦不过是无证之单掌而已。如是，虽以《巴协》为依据，然云： “仅依汉地禅师之宗义， 仅凭文字之表面， 隐匿其名号， 改名为大手印。” 如是等语，实难免对《巴协》本身造成损害，若谓汉地禅师之所有宗义皆已作为伏藏埋藏，不复存在，则当问此宗义从何而来？最初由何人掌握？则必无言以对。如是，一切知者白莲花所说。彼时之论辩者迦湿弥罗班智达，定为自续中观派，故亦不定为中观之究竟，且中观派不认为于等持位中，一切时皆必须进行分别观察。如圣者龙树之意趣，大尊者所阐释：譬如二木互相剧烈摩擦，因生火之缘故，二木皆被烧毁而无
English
Not abiding in mind and consciousness, therefore, do not recall the past, do not become arrogant about the future, and do not elaborate on the present. This is the equality of the three times, the complete purity of the three spheres, but sentient beings have not understood it, so they should be made to understand it. Thus, great compassion arises for sentient beings. As it is said, therefore, one should equally abide in the suchness that is free from all conceptual elaborations of the three times, that is, the unadulterated nature of the original mind. This is the essential point of the supreme instruction, and it is crucial to train in abiding without distraction. In general, although many people, claiming it to be the view of the Chan master Heshang, introduce many embellishments into their speech, one should base one's arguments on a view that integrates all of his doctrines and refute it by analyzing its faults. As stated in the "Ba Xie," this was a treasure hidden during the early flourishing period of the teachings, so later commentators in the "Ba Xie" and other texts repeated some of his views as precedents, but this is merely a futile effort. If the doctrine to be refuted is not directly seen, then what is stated in the "Ba Xie" and other texts is merely a single, unsupported hand. Thus, while relying on the "Ba Xie," it is said: "Relying only on the doctrines of the Chinese Chan masters, Only on the surface of the words, Hiding their names, Changing the name to Mahamudra." Such words inevitably cause harm to the "Ba Xie" itself. If it is said that all the doctrines of the Chinese Chan masters have been buried as treasures and no longer exist, then one must ask where did this doctrine come from? Who first held it? Then one would be speechless. Thus spoke the all-knowing Pema Karpo. The debater Kashyapa Pandit at that time was definitely a Svatantrika Madhyamika, so he was not necessarily the ultimate of Madhyamika, and the Madhyamikas do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to engage in conceptual analysis at all times during the state of equipoise. As explained by the great Lord Atisha, according to the intention of the noble Nagarjuna: For example, when two pieces of wood are rubbed together vigorously, the two pieces of wood are burned and destroyed by the fire that arises.