English
They also said that. In response to this statement, since they couldn't find a reason to say, "It is not mentioned in Chinese texts," they admitted that those great scholars who wrote Chinese texts did not understand the fundamental connections and contradictions, so they cannot rely solely on their citations. If one follows their views, it would be like supporting a non-Dharma position, as proven by the citation from the Four Hundred Verses. If one supports the words of many scholars, it would be like supporting the words of many evil people, and then indulging in drinking the poisonous ocean of attachment and hatred, which is actually sarcasm. Furthermore, they say that because of clinging to biased views, they do not like the path of the wise. Generally speaking, that is indeed the case. Also, forgetting to criticize others for saying that the explanation of the meaning of these limbs and so on does not agree with the Chinese commentaries, they say that even though there are many explanations in the Chinese commentaries in this case, they are not a strong proof, which directly shows their own contradictory statements. What is this? What did they think when they said, "Groundless nonsense"? Please consider it. Regarding the meaning of these limbs and so on, no matter which different view of the sutras and great treatises one supports, there is no contradiction. However, it is more inclined to be in accordance with the fundamental intention of the Bodhicharyavatara. Generally, it is not said that there is a contradiction with the explanations of the Prajna-utpatti and others. As it is said, if one analyzes the meaning of the scriptures with reason and sees that it is reasonable and correct, then reason must be dominant. We also think so and engage in analysis. If it is said that it is contradictory for a person's continuum to simultaneously have craving caused by many different types of self-grasping, then since it is not certain to be manifest, it will not be a fault. This is because the craving to encounter my happiness and so on arises from the co-emergent view of self, "I think it is me." Apart from that, it is difficult for many cravings caused by other different types of self-views, such as clinging to a permanent self, to exist, whether manifest or latent. Even if it is not said to be "manifest," it is actually understood to be manifest, just as it is said in the lists of afflictions, it is not necessary to add the distinction of manifest one by one. If one is talking about the latent state of afflictions, one will specifically mention that it is latent. You all, the alaya-vijnana and afflic-
Chinese
如果按照您的意愿，就像按照莲花等意义那样，必须按照大乘经论来理解，如果说两种执持方式不同的分别同时显现，连梵天也无法阻止， 那么，不仅是阿赖耶识和烦恼意，就连六识也同时显现多种不同的执持方式，虽然谁也无法否认，但也没有必要阻止。这对于由不同类型的我执所引发的两种存在同时存在没有任何帮助。所谓的“两种分别”，是指以自性分别的角度而言，多种不同类型的无分别智慧可以同时显现，就像经论中所说的那样，相同类型的两种分别不会同时产生。如果是以意识的差别，即声义混杂执着的分别的角度而言，两种分别不会同时产生。虽然是这样说的，但这些对于目前所讨论的问题没有任何帮助。对于这个小问题，仅仅是进行理性的分析，不应该产生如此强烈的贪嗔。但既然您看到了会产生贪嗔，那肯定就是这样吧。嗡 班匝萨埵 吽 (藏文：ཨོཾ་བཛྲ་ས་ཏྭ་ཧཱུྃ།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：oṃ vajrasattva hūṃ，汉语字面意思：嗡 金刚萨埵 吽)。 还有，他反驳说：由微细的坏聚见所引发的十二缘起支中的爱，为什么会有不是烦恼性的呢？这就像黎明前升起太阳来驱散黑暗一样。虽然我们认为爱不是像经论中所说的那样是烦恼性的，但爱遍及贪欲，而且不是承认以前没有贪欲的阿罗汉的宗派，所以要好好思考。紧接着，就像恶业的武器反过来伤害自己一样，这样说道：对方大肆宣扬不承认由坏聚见所引发的爱。这是暴露了不了解情况的恶劣迹象，因为《俱舍论》中说了坏聚见的因和果都是四十大烦恼，并且说了“自己的地的 一切烦恼”。还有，愚昧导致的怀疑等都是没有见闻过的胡说八道。如果获得解脱必须成佛，那么就要承认没有声闻和独觉的无漏五蕴和无学八支，并且解开菩萨戒的束缚，砍断五根树枝的老树苗。
English
If according to your wishes, just like understanding the meaning of lotus and so on, it must be understood according to the Mahayana scriptures. If you say that two different types of conceptualizations with different ways of holding simultaneously manifest, even Brahma cannot prevent it, Then, not only the Alaya consciousness and afflicted mind, but also the six consciousnesses simultaneously manifest many different ways of holding, although no one can deny it, there is no need to prevent it either. This does not help in any way for the simultaneous existence of two existences caused by different types of self-grasping. The so-called "two conceptualizations" refers to the fact that from the perspective of self-nature conceptualization, many different types of non-conceptual wisdom can manifest simultaneously, just as it is said in the scriptures that two conceptualizations of the same type do not arise simultaneously. If it is from the perspective of the difference of consciousness, that is, the conceptualization of mixed grasping of sound and meaning, then two conceptualizations do not occur simultaneously. Although it is said like this, these do not help in any way with the matter under discussion. For this small matter, merely conducting rational analysis should not generate such strong attachment and aversion. But since you see that attachment and aversion will arise, then it must be so. Om Vajrasattva Hum (藏文：ཨོཾ་བཛྲ་ས་ཏྭ་ཧཱུྃ།，梵文天城体：，梵文罗马拟音：oṃ vajrasattva hūṃ，汉语字面意思：嗡 金刚萨埵 吽). Also, he refuted: Why is it that craving, one of the twelve links of dependent origination caused by subtle view of the perishable, is not afflictive? This is like the sun rising before dawn to dispel darkness. Although we believe that craving is not afflictive as it is said in the scriptures, craving pervades desire, and it is not the tenet of those who accept Arhats without previous desire, so think carefully. Immediately afterwards, just like the weapon of evil karma turns back to harm oneself, he said this: The other party proclaimed loudly that they do not accept craving caused by the view of the perishable. This exposes the bad sign of not understanding the situation, because the Abhidharmakosha says that the cause and effect of the view of the perishable are both the forty great afflictions, and it says "all the afflictions of one's own ground." Also, doubts caused by ignorance and so on are all nonsense that has not been seen or heard. If one must become a Buddha to attain liberation, then one must acknowledge the absence of the five uncontaminated aggregates of the Hearers and Solitary Realizers and the eight limbs of the Non-Learner, and untie the girdle of the Bodhisattva vows, and cut off the old sapling with five branches.
Chinese
将（手）交叉放在（胸前），随意自在地前往无心佛的境界吧！在《大乘经》中，虽然说了无心的五种、六种，甚至以不同方式说了七种情况，但在这里，你们就前往由错觉、幻术所产生的第八种无心状态，安住于具足五种决定的状态，圆满享用可供受用的虚空莲花吧！小乘部派说：世尊也想要感受痛苦，所以努力不要获得解脱吧！因为之前已经引用过胜生（的观点），即见到胜义谛而获得解脱是没有争议的。虽然我对反驳你已经感到绝望，但大士说：“不开始是最好的，开始之后就不要退转。”所以似乎有必要勉强完成结尾。但不会放弃搅拌强力牛奶的本性。如是说。对此进行回答：十二缘起中的爱欲被贪欲所遍及，你认为具有这种（爱欲）相续的人不可能成为阿罗汉，这是对的。但是，即使暂时舍弃了由补特伽罗自性独立的我执所引发的现行爱欲，但为什么说由认为补特伽罗自性成立的坏聚见所引发的爱欲不存在呢？因为也看到了这样的解释。如果这样，那么经文根本上说：“此爱非烦恼性”，这就有害了。如果认为在那里也加上“从论藏所说的非烦恼性”这样的差别，那么从论藏所说的烦恼性是指以人我执为因的吗？如果是，那就会变成烦恼性，如果不是，那也会变成不是由认为补特伽罗自性成立的坏聚见所引发的爱欲，并且会间接成立存在非烦恼性的爱欲。如果想要加上“不是由论藏所说的粗大我执所产生的烦恼性”这样的差别，那么所有有情相续中都会变成没有与生俱来的从论藏所说的烦恼，如《入行论》中所说：“此于我执亦不应理”等等。还有其他的过失。证悟人无我之后，由二障所分的烦恼不会全部断除，因为人
English
Cross your (hands) on your (chest) and freely go to the realm of the mindless Buddha! In the Great Vehicle scriptures, although five, six, or even seven kinds of mindless states are mentioned in different ways, here, may you go to the eighth mindless state arising from illusion and magical tricks, and abide in a state of possessing five certainties, fully enjoying the lotus of the sky that can be used! The Hinayana school says: The Blessed One also wants to experience suffering, so strive not to attain liberation! Because the view of Sher Jung has already been quoted before, that there is no dispute about attaining liberation by seeing the ultimate truth. Although I am hopeless of refuting you, the Great Being said: "It is best not to start, but having started, do not turn back." So it seems necessary to force the ending. But I will not give up the nature of churning powerful milk. So he said. In response to that: Attachment in the twelve links of dependent origination is pervaded by desire, and it is true that you think that an Arhat is impossible for someone who has this (attachment) continuum. However, even if one temporarily abandons the manifest craving caused by the self-grasping of a person's independent nature, why is it said that the craving caused by the view of the perishable aggregate that holds the person to be inherently established does not exist? Because such an explanation has also been seen. If so, then the root text of the scripture says, "This craving is not of the nature of affliction," which is harmful. If you think that the distinction "not of the nature of affliction as stated in the Abhidharma" is also added there, then is the nature of affliction as stated in the Abhidharma caused by the ego-grasping of a person? If it is, then it will become the nature of affliction, and if it is not, then it will also not become the craving caused by the view of the perishable aggregate that holds the person to be inherently established, and it will implicitly establish that there is a craving that is not of the nature of affliction. If you want to add the distinction "not of the nature of affliction produced by the coarse ego-grasping stated in the Abhidharma," then it will become that there is no innate affliction stated in the Abhidharma in the continuum of all sentient beings, as stated in the Entering the Middle Way: "This is not reasonable as a basis for ego-grasping," and so on. There are other faults as well. After realizing the selflessness of the person, all the afflictions divided by the two obscurations will not be completely abandoned, because the person