以下翻译将严格遵循您的指示，对每段原文先给出完整的简体中文译文，然后紧接着提供完整、未删减的原文段落。如果篇幅超出单条消息限制，我会在消息末尾注明“[在下一条消息中继续]”，并在后续消息中不加任何省略地继续翻译。所有佛教术语的翻译会尽量遵循您提供的对照表与指示，保持一致性与完整性。

段落 1

简体中文翻译：

达赖喇嘛论大圆满（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性

Soh

另见：达赖喇嘛在新书中关于无我（anatta）和佛性空性的论述

刚才与 Yin Ling 讨论时，我重新阅读了达赖喇嘛著作中的一段文字。感觉很好，所以想分享一下。

原文：

“Dalai Lama on Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Emptiness and Buddha Nature

Soh

Also see: Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book

While discussing with Yin Ling just now I re-read a passage in Dalai Lama’s book. Pretty good so wanted to share.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 2

简体中文翻译：

**尊者达赖喇嘛（HHDL）：

大圆满（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）**

原文：

**“HHDL:

Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 3

简体中文翻译：

根据经教的观点，仅仅禅修心性中的明净觉知或禅修转化的佛性，并不能断除烦恼。然而，这确实会令我们更加确信烦恼并非心中本具的一部分，从而生起成佛的可能性。进而，这会引导我们去思考：是什么染污了心？又有什么方法能够彻底消除这些染污？为了寻求净化转化之佛性的途径，我们会修习了悟无自性的空性的智慧，并断除无明。

原文：

“According to Sūtra, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind or on the transforming buddha nature alone will not eradicate afflictions. However, it does lead us to have more confidence that afflictions are not an inherent part of the mind and therefore that becoming a buddha is possible. This, in turn, leads us to question: What defiles the mind and what can eliminate these defilements completely? Seeking the method to purify the transforming buddha nature, we will cultivate the wisdom realizing the emptiness of inherent existence and eradicate ignorance.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 4

简体中文翻译：

根据大圆满（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的观点，通过禅修心性中的明净觉知，可能会令粗分之气息融化，从而令最微细的光明心显现。当这种情况发生时，若修行人先前已经修习了对空性的正确了悟，便会将这种领悟融入禅修，并以自性光明心来证悟空性，从而遣除烦恼。

原文：

“According to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā, meditation on the clear and cognizant nature of the mind could lead the coarse winds to dissolve and the subtlest clear light mind to become manifest. When this happens, practitioners who have previously cultivated a correct understanding of emptiness then incorporate that understanding in their meditation and use the innate clear light mind to realize emptiness and abolish afflictions.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 5

简体中文翻译：

从大圆满（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的角度，正确理解《宝性论》（Sublime Continuum）非常重要。有些人对其作字面上的理解，错误地认为本初智慧是常住的、本质上自存的，不依赖任何其他因素，也不依因缘而生。然后他们会说出类似“如果你解开这个秘密，你就得解脱”这样的话。

原文：

“It is important to understand the Sublime Continuum correctly from a Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā point of view. Some people take it literally, leading them to incorrectly believe that primordial wisdom is permanent, inherently existent, independent of any other factors, and does not rely on causes and conditions. They then make statements such as, ‘If you unravel this secret, you will be liberated.’”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 6

简体中文翻译：

多智钦·吉美丹贝尼玛（1865–1926）及其弟子楚臣桑波（1884–大约1957年）是大圆满（Dzogchen）的伟大学者兼修行者，他们说，仅仅因为我们具备这种本初智慧，并不足以使我们自行解脱。为什么呢？因为在临终时，其他一切心识都已经融入，只剩下最本初的心。虽然在我们于轮回中所经历的无数次死亡里，它都曾显现过，但这并没有帮助我们成就佛果。这两位大德说，要成就佛果，必须运用这本初智慧来证悟空性；只有如此才能令我们得以解脱。这一点与宗喀巴大师的见解相一致。

原文：

“Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima (1865–1926) and his disciple Tsultrim Zangpo (1884–c.1957), who were great Dzogchen scholars and practitioners, said that the mere presence of this primordial wisdom within us alone cannot liberate us. Why not? At the time of death, all other minds have dissolved, and only the primordial mind remains. Even though it has manifested in all the infinite number of deaths we have experienced in saṃsāra, that has not helped us attain buddhahood. These two sages say that in order to attain buddhahood, it is necessary to utilize the primordial wisdom to realize emptiness; only that will liberate us. This is consistent with Tsongkhapa’s view.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 7

简体中文翻译：

有些关于大圆满（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的注释说：安住于烦恼中的这份智慧就是真实智慧，基于这一点，每一个有情本来即是佛。虽然我们从无始以来就是佛，但仍需要再次被“唤醒”。我们现有的智慧就是佛陀的遍知心，每一位有情众生都内在具足佛的三身。他们说，有情具足一个本具清净的基质，这并不仅仅是空性，而是具足三方面：它的本体是法身——即清净智慧的安住方式；它的本性是受用身——也就是此心识的显现面；而悲心是化身——即它的流露或表现。总之，他们宣称这三种佛身在我们的平常状态中都已圆满具足，只是因为被障蔽，我们才无法觉知到它们的存在。

原文：

“Some commentaries on Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā say: This wisdom that abides in the afflictions is the true wisdom, and on this basis every sentient being is already a buddha. Although we have been buddhas from beginningless time, we have to be awakened again. The wisdom that we have now is the omniscient mind of a buddha, and the three bodies of a buddha exist innately in each sentient being. Sentient beings have a basis of essential purity that is not merely emptiness but is endowed with three aspects. Its entity is the dharmakāya — the mode of abiding of pristine wisdom; its nature is the enjoyment body — the appearance aspect of that mind; and compassion is the emanation bodies — its radiance or expression. In short, they say that all three buddha bodies are present, fully formed in our ordinary state, but since they are obscured we are not aware of their presence.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 8

简体中文翻译：

如果将这些说法照字面理解，会带来很多问题。有些人会持偏颇且不公正的批判，只驳斥某些教派中的错误见解；而章嘉·罗追多吉（Changkya Rolpai Dorje，1717–86）则相当公正，他指出了所有四个藏传佛教传统（包括他自己的格鲁派）中可能出现的错误阐释。在他所写的《见道体验之歌》（Song of the Experience of the View）里，他表示：“我说这些并非对那些上师不敬，只是可能他们没有太多机会广泛研习大论典，也没能准确地使用某些术语。”换言之，他们所宣说的困难在于，他们广泛使用了一些术语，却没能依凭大论典的权威。当然，章嘉的评语并不适用于像多智钦·吉美丹贝尼玛和他的上师阿瓦·旁楚（Awa Pangchu）这样的真正大圆满（Dzogchen）行者和学者，因为他们曾深入研习与检证大论典，并在此基础上安立他们对大圆满的理解。他们的诠释和著述都非常杰出。

原文：

“Such statements taken literally are fraught with problems. While some people are partial and unfair in their criticism and refute misconceptions in only some traditions, Changkya Rolpai Dorje (1717–86) was unbiased and pointed out incorrect interpretations in all four Tibetan traditions, including his own Geluk tradition. In his Song of the Experience of the View, he says, ‘I say this not out of disrespect to these masters, but perhaps they have had less exposure to rigorous philosophical investigation of the great treatises and were unable to use certain terminology appropriately.’ That is, the difficulty in their assertions lies in a broad use of terminology that is not grounded in the authority of the great treatises. Of course, Changkya’s comments do not apply to Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā masters such as Dodrup Jigme Tenpai Nyima and his teacher Awa Pangchu, who have done serious philosophical study and examination of the great treatises and who ground their understanding of Dzogchen in them. Their interpretations and writings are excellent.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

[在下一条消息中继续]

以下继续逐段翻译。上条消息中我们已经完成至“他们的诠释和著述都非常杰出。”的段落。现在从下一段开始，如下所示：

段落 9

简体中文翻译：

**藏传佛教四大传承都教授一种探寻心的方法——探究它从何而来、向何处去、它的形状和颜色是什么等等。谈到这一共同的修行法门，章嘉·罗追多吉说，当我们以这样的方式寻找后，就发现心并不是实质性的，缺乏颜色和形状，也并非来自某处或前往某处。了解这一点后，修行者会产生一种空无的体验。然而，这种“空无”并不是心之究竟实相即无自性的空性，而仅仅是心并非实质物体的缺失。即便有人认为这种“空无”就是究竟实相并在那种状态中长时间禅修，其实那并不是在修持心之究竟本性。

禅修心的方法有两种。第一种如前所述，通过检验心是否具有颜色、形状、位置、可触性等等，来观察心的相状，从而感受到心在世俗层面并不具备这些特质。第二种则是修持心之究竟本性，通过探究心的究竟安立方式，体认心的无自性空性。若有人混淆了这两种禅修方式，误以为心没有实质性、没有颜色等特征就是心的究竟本性，那么他们可能会批评诸如陈那（Dignāga）和法称（Dharmakīrti）等大师对辩论、理则以及推理所做的精细阐释，认为这些只会增加妄想。贡塘·贡却丹贝绛美（1762–1823）——另一位对西藏佛教各传统都能公平分析的大德——对此感到惊讶。**

原文：

**“All four Tibetan traditions teach practices that search for the mind — where it came from, where it goes, what its shape and color are, and so forth. Speaking of this shared practice, Changkya said that after searching in this manner, we find that the mind is not tangible, lacks color and shape, and does not come from one place or go to another. Discovering this, meditators experience a sensation of voidness. However, this voidness is not the emptiness of inherent existence that is the ultimate reality of the mind; it is the mere absence of the mind being a tangible object. Although someone may think this voidness is ultimate reality and meditate in that state for a long time, this is not meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind.

There are two ways to meditate on the mind. The first is as above, examining whether the mind has color, shape, location, tangibility, and so forth. This leads to the sense that the conventional nature of the mind lacks these qualities. The second is meditation on the ultimate nature of the mind, in which we examine the mind’s ultimate mode of existence and discover its emptiness of inherent existence. People who confuse these two ways of meditating on the mind and think that the mind’s absence of tangibility, color, and so forth is the mind’s ultimate nature may criticize masters such as Dignāga and Dharmakīrti for their precise expositions on debate, logic, and reasoning, saying these only increase preconceptions. Gungtang Konchog Tenpai Dronme (1762–1823), another master who was impartial in his critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhist traditions, said he found this amazing.”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 10

简体中文翻译：

有些人认为，在修行的道路上无需理性思辨或考察，只要对上师具足信心并获得加持，就能令本初智慧生起。基于这一点，我对于如今设立更多讲授印度与西藏传统哲学典籍的学术院校（即“喜德拉”）一事感到非常欣慰。

原文：

“Some people believe there is no need for reasoning or investigation on the path, that simply by having faith and receiving the blessing of a guru primordial wisdom will arise. In this light, I have been very happy to see the establishment of more shedras — academic institutes — that teach the classical philosophical texts from India and Tibet.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 11

简体中文翻译：

有些西方人同样不重视佛法的学习与探究，也许是因为佛法在西方还相对新颖。缺乏对佛法的整体理解，人们往往会寻求最容易、最短捷的成道之路，一条不需要舍弃执著的道路。这样的态度在藏人当中也同样存在。宗喀巴大师曾说，许多人认为佛陀所具足的功德很令人敬畏，但当善知识借由理证与经教来阐明获得这些功德的修行之道时，他们就会心生退缩，说：“谁能真的成就那样的证悟呢？”

原文：

“Some Westerners similarly do not value Dharma study and investigation, perhaps because Buddhadharma is relatively new in the West. Without a comprehensive understanding of the Buddhadharma, people tend to seek the easiest and shortest path to awakening, a path that does not require giving up their attachments. Such an attitude exists among Tibetans as well. Tsongkhapa said that many people think that the Buddha’s qualities are wonderful, but when a spiritual mentor explains through reasoning and scriptural citations how to attain them, they become discouraged and say, ‘Who can actually achieve such realizations?’”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 12（标题）

简体中文翻译：

我们已经是佛了吗？

原文：

“Are We Already Buddhas?”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 13

简体中文翻译：

**在《如来藏经》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）中，佛陀开示，每一个有情众生都具足一个常住、坚固、不坏并且长存的如来藏（tathāgatagarbha），这如来藏即是全然具足三十二相之佛身。于是便会产生这样的问题：如果我们内在已经现证一尊佛，那我们岂不是“无明的佛”吗？若我们此刻就已然是佛，那么修行之道又有何意义？如果我们本来就是佛，可仍需净化烦恼，那么岂不是说佛也有烦恼吗？如果我们具足一个常住、坚固、不坏的本体，那这难道不会与无我教义相违，从而更像是外道所说的神我或灵魂吗？

大慧（Mahāmati）在《楞伽经》（Descent into Lanka Sūtra）中对佛陀表达了同样的疑问：

“如来藏（tathāgatagarbha）如佛在某些经中所说，被誉为本性清净、自始至终清净，并且本自具足三十二相，恒住在所有有情的身中。若它如被污秽的布包裹的宝石一般——亦即被蕴、界、处之所包裹、染污，且为贪、嗔、痴所困，亦以种种妄想之染污所遮蔽，并且常住、坚固、不坏——那这样所宣说的‘如来藏’，与外道所说的‘我’又有何区别呢？”（注：该段经文意译，问题本身来自大慧的疑问）**

原文：

**“In the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Buddha explained that each sentient being possesses a permanent, stable, stable, and enduring tathāgatagarbha that is a fully developed buddha body (kāya) replete with the thirty-two signs of a buddha. Questions arise: If an already realized buddha existed within us, wouldn’t we be ignorant buddhas? If we were actual buddhas now, what would be the purpose of practicing the path? If we were already buddhas and yet still needed to purify defilements, wouldn’t a buddha have defilements? If we had a permanent, stable, and enduring essence, wouldn’t that contradict the teachings on selflessness and instead resemble the self or soul asserted by non-Buddhists? Mahāmati expressed these same doubts to the Buddha in the Descent into Lanka Sūtra:

The tathāgatagarbha taught [by the Buddha in some sūtras] is said to be clear light in nature, completely pure from the beginning, and to exist possessing the thirty-two signs in the bodies of all sentient beings. If, like a precious gem wrapped in a dirty cloth, [the Buddha] expressed that [tathāgatagarbha] — wrapped in and dirtied by the cloth of the aggregates, constituents, and sources; overwhelmed by the force of attachment, animosity, and ignorance; dirtied with the defilements of conceptualizations; and permanent, stable, and enduring — how is this propounded as tathāgatagarbha different from the non-Buddhists propounding a self?88”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

[注]：此处引用的脚注编号 88 在原文中用于引用经文出处，此处保持原样，不做改动。

[在下一条消息中继续]

以下继续逐段翻译。上条消息中我们已经完成至“若它如被污秽的布包裹的宝石一般……”的段落。现在从下一段（第14段）开始，如下所示：

段落 14

简体中文翻译：

有些藏地学者将“常住、坚固和不坏的佛性”这一说法照字面理解，认为这是究竟了义的教示。而中观应成派（Prāsaṅgika）则承接前文大慧（Mahāmati）提出的疑问，视此说为不了义的教授。应成派并非随意这么断言，而是通过考量以下三点：

原文：

“Some Tibetan scholars accept the teaching on a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature literally, saying it is a definitive teaching. Sharing the doubts expressed above by Mahāmati, Prāsaṅgikas say this is an interpretable teaching. They say this, not on a whim, but by examining three points.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 15

简体中文翻译：

(1) 佛陀在说此番话时，最终想要表达的本意是什么？

当佛陀说每个众生都具足常住、坚固和不坏的本性时，他真正想讲的是：心的空性，即自然安住的佛性，才是真正常住、坚固和不坏的。正因为心是无自性而烦恼是客尘，所以成佛才成为可能。

原文：

“(1) What was the Buddha’s final intended meaning when he made this statement? When speaking of a permanent, stable, and enduring essence in each sentient being, the Buddha’s intended meaning was the emptiness of the mind, the naturally abiding buddha nature, which is permanent, stable, and enduring. Because the mind is empty of inherent existence and the defilements are adventitious, buddhahood is possible.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 16

简体中文翻译：

(2) 佛陀为何这样说？

佛陀之所以宣说常住、坚固和不坏、具足三十二相的本性，是为了安抚某些人对无我的恐惧，并逐渐引导外道信众通达如如实相。此时，这些根机尚浅的人觉得常住本体比较容易理解，而对空性无自性（他们误以为那意味着万法全然不存在）却心生畏惧，害怕证悟空性会令自己全然消失或不复存在。为平息他们的恐惧，佛陀以符合他们现有观念的方式来开示；待他们根机成熟后，才会教授究竟义的内涵。这就像慈爱的父母对年幼的孩子会简化某些复杂理念，好让孩子可以逐步接受。

原文：

“(2) What was the Buddha’s purpose for teaching this? The Buddha taught a permanent, stable, enduring essence complete with the thirty-two signs, in order to calm some people’s fear of selflessness and to gradually lead non-Buddhists to the full realization of suchness. At present, these people, who are spiritually immature, feel comfortable with the idea of a permanent essence. The idea of the emptiness of inherent existence frightens them; they mistakenly think it means that nothing whatsoever exists. They fear that by realizing emptiness, they will disappear and cease to exist. To calm this fear, the Buddha spoke in a way that corresponds with their current ideas. Later, when they are more receptive, he will teach them the actual meaning. This is similar to the way skillful parents simplify complex ideas to make them comprehensible to young children.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 17

简体中文翻译：

(3) 如果将这一说法照字面解释，会引发哪些理性上的矛盾？

若把“常住、坚固、不坏的佛性”视为直指事实，就会与佛在《般若经》中所阐释的空性与无我究竟义相冲突。在这些经中，佛陀提出众多理据来否定这种见解。此外，若照字面理解此说法，佛陀的教法便会与主张常住自我的外道学说无异。

原文：

“(3) What logical inconsistencies arise from taking this statement literally? Accepting this teaching on a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature at face value contradicts the definitive meaning of emptiness and selflessness explained by the Buddha in the Perfection of Wisdom sūtras. In those sūtras, the Buddha set forth many reasonings that refute this view. Furthermore, if this statement were accepted literally, the Buddha’s teachings would be no different from those of non-Buddhists who assert a permanent self.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 18

简体中文翻译：

**无自性之空性——亦即心的究竟实相与自然清净——普遍存在于所有有情之中。基于此才说“佛存在于众生当中”。但“佛陀的究竟实相”并不存在于众生之中。固然，佛与众生在“心之究竟本性”是空性这一点上没有差别，但两者的究竟实相并不相同：前者是佛陀之心的究竟实相——法身，而后者是仍被染污的心之究竟实相。若说法身实实在在地存在于众生之中，那么与之同体的智慧法身亦必然在众生之中，如此一来就意味着众生具备遍知，这显然与事实不符！

同理，若说离一切烦恼的境界已在凡夫众生之中，就没有理由使他们不能直接现观自心的自然清净。他们理应能够亲证空性。但事实并非如此。**

原文：

**“The emptiness of inherent existence — which is the ultimate reality and the natural purity of the mind — exists in all sentient beings without distinction. Based on this, it is said that a buddha is present. But the ultimate reality of a buddha does not exist in sentient beings. While buddhas and sentient beings are the same in that the ultimate nature of their minds is emptiness, that ultimate reality is not the same because one is the ultimate reality of a buddha’s mind — the nature dharmakāya — and the other is the ultimate reality of a defiled mind. If we said that the nature dharmakāya existed in sentient beings, we would have to also say that the wisdom dharmakāya, which is one nature with it, existed in sentient beings. That would mean that sentient beings were omniscient, which certainly is not the case!

Similarly, if the abandonment of all defilements existed in ordinary sentient beings, there would be nothing to prevent them from directly perceiving the natural purity of their minds. They would directly realize emptiness. This, too, is not the case.”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 19

简体中文翻译：

有人说具足二种清净（自然清净以及已断除所有烦恼之清净）的法身存在于众生的相续之中，但由于众生被障蔽，所以无法见到它。若事实如此，那么究竟是谁的心被净化，谁又得到解脱并成就了断除一切烦恼的清净？如果众生从无始以来就已具足法身，那就无须修道、无须净化自心，因为他们自始至终都不曾被任何客尘染污。

主张如来具有三十二相并圆满存在于众生相续之中的观点，与有神论者所说的永恒清净、不变的自我别无二致。假如我们与生俱来的确具有三十二相，那说我们还需要通过修道来创造三十二相的因缘就自相矛盾。若有人说这些相本来就在我们之中，只是未显现，还需要使之显现，这就类似于数论派（Sāṃkhya）所谓的“从自体中生起（arising from self）”，也就是说，虽然已然存在，却还要再次生起以显现。龙树菩萨及其追随者们已透过种种理证驳斥了“自生论”。

原文：

**“Some people say the dharmakāya with the two purities — the natural purity and the purity of the abandonment of all defilements — exists in the mindstreams of sentient beings, but because sentient beings are obscured, they don’t perceive it. If that were the case, then whose mind is purified and who attains the freedom that is the purity of all defilements? If sentient beings already possess the dharmakāya, there is no need for them to practice the path and purify their minds, because from beginningless time their minds have been free of adventitious defilements.

The assertion that a buddha complete with the thirty-two signs exists within the continuums of all sentient beings echoes the theistic theory of an eternally pure, unchanging self. If the thirty-two signs were already present in us, it would be contradictory to say that we still need to practice the path to create the causes for them. If someone says that they are already in us in an unmanifest form and they just need to be made manifest, that resembles the Sāṃkhya notion of arising from self, because even though existing, this buddha would need to be produced again in order to be made manifest. Nāgārjuna and his followers soundly refuted production from self.”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 20

简体中文翻译：

**经文接着记载了佛陀对此的回应：

“大慧啊，我所宣说的如来藏并不与外道所说的‘我’相同。大慧啊，如来、阿罗汉、正等正觉者们以空性、究竟清净、涅槃、不生、无相、无愿等词语来表示如来藏，（这样做）是为了令幼稚的有情完全断除对无我的恐惧，（并且）为了开显无分别境界、无所显现的境地。”89

我们从这里看到，佛陀会依据不同众生当下所需以及长远利益，以各种不同的方式来开示教法。此外，我们也应当深入思维这些教言，从不同角度进行探究，并结合理证与对其他经文的学习，以辨别何为究竟意义。我们学佛性，是为了明白心本不具缺陷，而且事实上它可以被圆满净化与成就。不仅如此，心也并非只是可以转化，而是它已具备某种能够被净化并成就的部分。了解这一点会令我们对修行的信心和动力大增，从而运用各种方法来净化与圆满这颗心，使之成为全然觉悟的佛心。**

原文：

**“The sūtra continues with the Buddha’s response:

Mahāmati, my teaching of the tathāgatagarbha is not similar to the propounding of a self by non-Buddhists. Mahāmati, the tathāgatas, arhats, the perfectly completed buddhas indicated the tathāgatagarbha with the meaning of the words emptiness, limit of complete purity, nirvāṇa, unborn, signless, wishless, and so forth. [They do this] so that the immature might completely relinquish a state of fear regarding the selfless, [and to] teach the nonconceptual state, the sphere without appearance.89

Here we see that the Buddha skillfully taught different ideas to different people, according to what was necessary at the moment and beneficial in the long term to further them on the path. We also learn that we must think deeply about the teachings, exploring them from various viewpoints and bring knowledge gained from reasoning and from reading other scriptures to discern their definitive meaning. The purpose of learning about buddha nature is to understand that the mind is not intrinsically flawed and that, on the contrary, it can be perfected. It is not just that the mind can be transformed; there is already part of the mind that allows it to be purified and perfected. Understanding this gives us great confidence and energy to practice the methods to purify and perfect this mind of ours so that it will become the mind of a fully awakened buddha.”**

脚注/附注（如果有）：

[注]：89处脚注内容为原文标注，这里原样保留。

段落 21（标题“REFLECTION”）

简体中文翻译：

思考：

原文：

“REFLECTION”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 22

简体中文翻译：

“住于烦恼中的无垢智慧”意味着什么？

难道我们已经是智慧圆满的佛，但却自己不知道吗？

佛陀会有烦恼吗？

佛陀说在我们每个人当中都有一个常住、坚固、不坏的佛性。他这么说的最终旨意是什么？他说这些的目的是什么？

若将这句话照字面来理解，会产生怎样的理性矛盾？

原文：

“What does it mean to say that pristine wisdom abides in the afflictions?

Are we already wise buddhas but just don’t know it?

Do buddhas have afflictions?

The Buddha said there is a permanent, stable, and enduring buddha nature in each of us. What was his final intended meaning in saying this? What was his purpose for teaching this?

What logical inconsistencies arise from taking this statement literally?”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 23

简体中文翻译：

拉玛·达赖喇嘛；秋尊·图登（Chodron, Thubten）所著：《轮回、涅槃与佛性》（《智慧与慈悲文库》第3卷）（第372页），智慧出版（Wisdom Publications），Kindle电子版。

原文：

“Lama, Dalai; Chodron, Thubten. Samsara, Nirvana, and Buddha Nature (The Library of Wisdom and Compassion Book 3) (p. 372). Wisdom Publications. Kindle Edition.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 24（破折线段落）

简体中文翻译：

——

原文：

“——”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 25

简体中文翻译：

更新于2025年：Nafis给我发来达赖喇嘛在另一部著作中的一段精彩引文——

原文：

“Update 2025: Nafis sent me another nice quote by the Dalai Lama from another book - ”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

[在下一条消息中继续]

以下继续逐段翻译。上条消息中我们已经完成至“更新于2025年：Nafis给我发来达赖喇嘛在另一部著作中的一段精彩引文——”的段落。现在从下一段开始，如下所示：

段落 26

简体中文翻译：

一个普通人死时所经历的光明，被称为“有分别”（conceptual），在此处意味着心仍是被障蔽的。当普通有情在死亡时经历最本初的自性光明心时，他们并没有觉知到此心正所缘的境。有些学者主张此时死亡的光明心所现起的是空性，但并不能被明确了知；另一些学者则说，它所缘的是一种与空性相似，却并非无自性空性的虚空境。无论如何，在死亡光明显现时，暂时看似不显的无明迟早会再度出现，八十种标志性的分别念以及其他烦恼也会在中阴和下一生中再度现行。然而，一个已在密乘法门上勤修不辍之人，可以利用这种自然状态的“无明不显”，在光明中修习对空性的禅定。对于尚未受过此种训练的凡夫而言，当光明现前时就如同昏厥了一样。他们既无法了知此光明的临在，也无法运用它来修行。

原文：

“The clear light of death of an ordinary person is said to be ‘conceptual,’ which in this context means that the mind is obscured. When ordinary beings experience the fundamental innate clear-light mind of death, they are not aware of the mind having an object. Some scholars assert that emptiness appears to the clear light of death but is not ascertained. Others say its object is a form of voidness that is similar to emptiness but is not the emptiness of inherent existence. In either case, any absence of manifest ignorance at the time of the clear light of death is temporary, and the eighty indicative conceptions and other afflictions reemerge in the bardo and the next rebirth. However, a person who has trained diligently in tantric methods can use this natural absence of ignorance during the clear light to meditate on emptiness. Ordinary beings who lack training miss this opportunity. For them, it is as if their mind were in a faint when the clear light dawns. They are neither aware of its presence nor able to utilize it for meditation.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 27

简体中文翻译：

一些成就很高的修行者在呼吸停止后，仍能在临终的光明中安住数日，甚至有些人因此而获得某些证悟，乃至究竟圆满的觉悟。然而，在临终时能留驻于光明之中，并不一定就表明他们拥有密乘瑜伽的修证。有些看似并非瑜伽行者的人——尽管他们生前也许曾在某种程度上体验过光明——却仍可由于其他因缘而留驻在光明中。最有可能的原因是他们所积累善业的力量。即便如此，如果他们没有证悟空性的智慧，也无法从留驻在光明中的状态中得到真正巨大的利益。

原文：

“Some highly realized practitioners meditate in the clear light at death for days after the breath has stopped. Some attain realizations, even full awakening. However, staying in the clear light at death time is not necessarily indicative of having yogic realizations. A few people who do not seem to be yogis—although they may have had the experience of some form of clear light while alive—stay in the clear light due to other circumstances. Most likely, this is related to the power of their virtue. Although this is the case, if they lack the wisdom realizing emptiness, they do not receive great benefit from staying in the clear light.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 28

简体中文翻译：

所有的大德都强调了解心性的关键意义。这里所说的“心性”，指的是示现比喻光明（example clear light）以及真正的光明——也就是在圆满次第（completion stage）中能够证悟空性的那些心识状态。能够实现这一点的瑜伽师已经十分接近佛地。此等心识远比波罗蜜乘（Pāramitāyāna）所运用的心识更加微细。真正的光明心是本初自性光明心，了悟空性之时，依靠将所有气息融入心轮正中央的中脉而使之完全显现出来。而且，就其所证得的空性所依来说，与寻常的五蕴等染污所依不同，它所依的是经过净化后的最极微细之心。总之，在圆满次第的高阶位上，本初自性光明心了悟其自身的空性，借此获得特别的力量，从而将一切烦恼从心中彻底断除。此时所证之能取（最微细之心）与所取（空性）皆得清净。

原文：

“All the great masters stress the importance of understanding the nature of the mind. This refers to manifesting the example clear light and the actual clear light—states of mind that realize emptiness—on the completion stage. Yogis who can do this are close to buddhahood. These states of mind are much subtler than those used in the Pāramitāyāna. The actual clear light is the fundamental innate mind of clear light that realizes emptiness and is made manifest by dissolving all winds in the central channel at the heart. In addition, the basis of emptiness is special: it is not an impure object such as our ordinary five aggregates, but the subtlest mind that has been purified. In short, at high levels of the completion stage the fundamental innate mind of clear light realizes its own empty nature, which gives it special power to eliminate defilements from the mind. Both the subject, the subtlest mind, and its object, emptiness, are purified.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 29

简体中文翻译：

这就是在密续中所说的“了悟心性”的含义；这样的证悟能令我们迅速抵达究竟圆满的觉悟，也就是我们的最终目标。甘波巴（Gampopa）初次见到密勒日巴（Milarepa）时，曾夸口说自己拥有极其稳固的奢摩他定力。密勒日巴答道：“那很不错，但我了解我的心性。”

原文：

“This is the meaning of realizing the nature of the mind in Tantra; such a realization leads quickly to full awakening, our final goal. When Gampopa first met Milarepa, Gampopa boasted about his strong single-pointed concentration. Milarepa responded, ‘That’s nice, but I know the nature of my mind.’”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

段落 30

简体中文翻译：

标签：佛性、空性、达赖喇嘛陛下 |

原文：

“Labels: Buddha Nature, Emptiness, His Holiness the Dalai Lama |

”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

结尾说明

以上即是全部翻译内容。至此，已将您提供的全部英文原文逐段翻译成简体中文，并在每个段落翻译之后紧跟原文，对照且无任何省略或删减。

额外简短说明

关于关键概念：

• “心性”在上述文中指“自然安住的觉知与明净”，也是“大圆满”和“大手印”中核心修行的对象。

• “本初智慧”并非恒常不变之实体，而是指能够彻见空性并遣除烦恼的极微细心或明觉。

• “如来藏”或“佛性”并非与外道所说的永恒独立之神我相同，乃是指依空性与客尘烦恼的可断尽性而言，有情可以圆满成佛。

书目参考：

• 达赖喇嘛、图登秋尊著：《轮回、涅槃与佛性》（《智慧与慈悲文库》第3卷），Wisdom Publications 电子版。

如有其它疑问，欢迎提问。祝法喜充满。

以下为翻译内容，按照初始提示逐段完整呈现：

简体中文翻译：

此外，与此相关的还有：

原文：

“Also relevant:

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

简体中文翻译：

Soh 写信给 J 先生：正如 John Tan 之前所说，并且许多人（包括 Malcolm、达赖喇嘛等经历过相似阶段的人）也曾重申过……在修行过程中存在明显的阶段——觉知的实现（尽管 Malcolm 并不以相同方式使用此术语），即 rigpa 中那“未加修饰”的清明面相的实现，与空性的实现是截然不同的体证。甚至 Longchenpa 及其他 dzogchen 大师也会指出，空性的体证仅在 thodgal（透光）修法中于第三光明相时出现。

原文：

“Soh wrote to Mr. J: as John Tan also said before, and also reiterated by many (including Malcolm, Dalai Lama, etc) who went through similar phases… there is distinct phase - realizing Awareness [although Malcolm does not use this term in the same way] or the unfabricated clarity aspect of rigpa, and realizing emptiness are distinct realizations. Even longchenpa and other dzogchen masters would point out that realizing emptiness only happens in thodgal practice at the third vision.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

“thodgal”译作“透光”，系 dzogchen 修法术语。

简体中文翻译：

John Tan 在回应 Malcolm 2020 年的一篇文章中写道：

“这正如我对你所说的，并且本质上强调‘明心非见性。先明心，后见性。’

（Soh：‘明心’即领会心识，并非见其性；先领会心识，后体见本性。）

首先是直接认证心/识——明心（Soh：领会心识）。有一种直接的途径，就像禅宗那种顿悟原始心、或大手印、或 dzogchen 直接传授 rigpa，甚至是 advaita 中的自我探究——即不经中介、直接、即时地感知“识”，这一切都是相同的。

然而，那并非空性的体证。空性的体证即为见性（Soh：见性）。依我之见，虽然存在通向明心的直接途径，但我尚未见过任何通向见性的直接途径。如果你深入探究我们心识构造的深度与微妙之处，你将明白盲点是多么深邃和细腻。

因此，空性或“空性”（Soh：空性）是佛教与其他宗教之间的主要区别。虽然无我（anatta）是直接体验空性的味道，但佛教的无我与其他宗教所强调的无我之间仍有差别——无论是仅仅是通过体验自我解体而感受的无我，还是由空性智慧触发的体验。

前者侧重于无我，其整个修行途径都是为了消除自我，而后者则是活在空性智慧中，并将那空性洞见应用于万法。

至于空性，有一种细微区别：一方面是宗喀巴所指的“看破自性见”，另一方面是 Gorampa 所说的“超越极端的空性”。两者各有其深刻之处，因此不要胡说八道、以亵渎之词讨论结果；归根结底（依我之见），它们是相同的。”

原文：

“John Tan’s reply on something Malcolm wrote in 2020:

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性. (Soh: Apprehending Mind is not seeing [its] Nature. First apprehend Mind, later realise [its] Nature).

First is directly authenticating mind/consciousness 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind). There is the direct path like zen sudden enlightenment of one’s original mind or mahamudra or dzogchen direct introduction of rigpa or even self enquiry of advaita – the direct, immediate, perception of “consciousness” without intermediaries. They are the same.

However that is not realization of emptiness. Realization of emptiness is 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 见性 (Soh: Seeing Nature) yet. If you go through the depth and nuances of our mental constructs, you will understand how deep and subtle the blind spots are.

Therefore emptiness or 空性 (Soh: Empty Nature) is the main difference between buddhism and other religions. Although anatta is the direct experiential taste of emptiness, there is still a difference between buddhist’s anatta and selflessness of other religions – whether it is anatta by experiential taste of the dissolution of self alone or the experiential taste is triggered by wisdom of emptiness.

The former focused on selflessness and whole path of practice is all about doing away with self whereas the latter is about living in the wisdom of emptiness and applying that insight and wisdom of emptiness to all phenomena.

As for emptiness there is the fine line of seeing through inherentness of Tsongkhapa and there is the emptiness free from extremes by Gorampa. Both are equally profound so do not talk nonsense and engaged in profane speech as in terms of result, ultimately they are the same (imo).”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

1. “明心非见性. 先明心, 后见性”以及“空性”均按照已有译法保留。

2. 此处 Tsongkhapa 译为宗喀巴； Gorampa 译为果朗巴。

简体中文翻译：

达赖喇嘛曾说：“本性——有许多不同的层次。常俗层面，即单一的本性；还有，你看，还有其他层次。然后是究竟层面，即终极实相……所以，只要体认心之清明，那就是常俗层面。这与印度教徒是相通的，所以我们必须了解这些不同层次……” —— 达赖喇嘛在新书中论及佛性无我与空性时如此表述。

原文：

“Dalai Lama - “Nature - there are many different levels. Conventional level, one nature. There are also, you see, different levels. Then, ultimate level, ultimate reality… so simply realise the Clarity of the Mind, that is the conventional level. That is common with Hindus, like that. So we have to know these different levels….” - Dalai Lama on Anatta and Emptiness of Buddha Nature in New Book”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

简体中文翻译：

或者，正如 Kyle Dixon 就 trekchod（立断(彻却)）的观点向 Malcolm 重申的那样：

Kyle Dixon（见 Reddit 用户 krodha）：

“是的，实际状态的 trekchö 就是瑜伽直接观空之非概念化平衡。未开悟者无法认识空性，但清明却是可以知晓的。我们在练习 nominal trekchö（名义上 trekchö）时，直到我们体证空性，其运作都是依靠清明面相 [gsal cha]。名义上的‘小’ trekchö 亦称为‘观法瑜伽’。”

Malcolm 说：

“问题的表述不准确。Treckhöd（立断(彻却)）通常可概括为一种将空性洞见与止观相结合的修法。但在见性之道之下，这种洞见是概念化的，基于直接传授的示范智慧。然而，treckhöd（立断(彻却)） 中所观的空性在未踏上见性之道前，也是推理所得。实际上，智慧圆满、大手印、禅宗等与 treckhöd（立断(彻却)） 没有区别。我听说 Tulku Orgyen 曾断言 treckhöd（立断(彻却)） 存在于所有法门中，也许 EPK 会慷慨确认这一点。究竟是什么使 treckhöd（立断(彻却)） 有别于其他传授法门？treckhöd（立断(彻却)），犹如任何密法咒修法，都基于加持/传授。”

“事实上，人所安住的是空性清明。然而，在见性之道之下，那清明中的空性是概念推理所得。但在修定时，我们仅仅安住于清明面相，而不陷入‘这是空的’之类的概念。我们早已知道它是空的，因为我们在心的 rushan 或渐顿空性的 semzin 中已作分析确认。”

原文：

“or as kyle dixon reiterated malcolm with regards to trekchod:

Kyle Dixon:

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha

Yes, the actual state of trekchö is the nonconceptual equipoise of a yogic direct perception of emptiness. Emptiness cannot be known by unawakened people, but clarity can be known. The nominal trekchö we practice until we realize emptiness works with the clarity aspect [gsal cha]. The nominal “little” trekchö is also called “the yoga of the view.”

Malcolm:

“The question is framed incorrectly. Treckhöd is best described in general terms as a practice in which insight into emptiness and śamatha are combined. But below the path of seeing, this insight is conceptual, based on the example wisdom of the direct introduction. However, the emptiness meditated upon in treckhöd（立断(彻却)） is also inferential until one mounts the path of seeing. There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd. I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that treckhöd（立断(彻却)） exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from treckhöd（立断(彻却)） from these other systems of the method of introduction. Treckhöd（立断(彻却)）, like any secret mantra practice, is based on empowerment/introduction.”

“Actually, what one is resting is empty clarity. However, below the path of seeing, the emptiness of that clarity is a conceptual inference. However, when meditating, we just rest in the clarity aspect without engaging in concepts like “this is empty.” We know already that it is empty since we confirmed this analytically during rushan of the mind or the semzin of gradual and sudden emptiness.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

1. “trekchö”亦译作“立断(彻却)”，下文中“nominal”译为“名义上”，“gsal cha”为藏文音译，保留原义。

2. 梵语samatha，音译为奢摩他、舍摩他，又作止寂、等观，意为止息一切妄念，心归于专注一境的状态。观，梵语vipasyana，音译为毘钵舍那、毘婆舍那，意为开启正智，正确观照诸法，而断灭诸结烦恼。

简体中文翻译：

这是一版编辑自 Malcolm 2011 年关于该主题的发言。

认识 rigpa 与体证空性之间有何差别？

认识 rigpa 意味着你是一位修行者；体证空性意味着你是一位觉悟者（ārya）。

认识 rigpa 并不等同于进入第一地（bhūmi）上见性的道。见性之道是在一个人对空性的理解不再仅为知识构造、而转为有效直接体验的那一刻达到的。[1] 换句话说，当一个人不再将诸法以四极（四个极端）的形式实体化时，那便是对空性的直接体验。直至那时，你的“空性”依旧只是一个否定序列的智识，或许是准确的，但依然是概念性的。这里在 Dzogchen 中体证的空性，与其他大乘法门中体证空性意义相同。

对 rigpa 的认识即为对清明的认识。它仅仅是关于自己作为修行基础状态的知识（rig pa）。这种对 rigpa 的认识（基础知识）并不要求预先体证空性，亦无法要求如此。若真如此，则非 ārya 之人根本无法在各地修行 Dzogchen。所以，需要正确理解，但不要求体证空性。因此，这种认识，并非等同于见性之道中体证空性，只是一种范例智慧而已。

体证空性也并非 trekchö（立断(彻却)）的基本要求，即在一瞬间不加修饰之意识（ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma）的稳定安住。仅需对空性有正确的理解。

这种对空性的理解虽是必要条件，但绝非等同于体证空性。空性的体验即为体验一种不染概念的意识（shes pa），常被称为察觉两念之间的间隙。如果你遵循 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 的教法，将这种体验称为“法身”（Dharmakāya）便是错误的；它仅是一种无常的体验。

就 thögal（透光）及四光明相而言，只要你继续将诸法实体化，就不会达到第三光明相。这也是现代 Dzogchen 修法中为何更强调 trekchö（立断(彻却)）基础而非 thögal 道的主要原因。如果你是一位第一地菩萨等，那么 Dzogchen 中的四境会非常非常迅速。然而，由于仅靠 trekchö 修习无法保证必然体证空性，因此亦推荐 tummo 等修法。

[1] 详见《阿毗舍摩罗伽罗》（abhisamayālamkara）。

原文：

“This is an edited version of Malcolm’s posts from 2011 on that topic.

Difference between recognizing rigpa & realizing emptiness?

Recognizing rigpa means one is a practitioner. Realizing emptiness means one is an awakened person (ārya).

The recognition of rigpa is not equal to entering the path of seeing on the first bhūmi. The path of seeing is reached the moment one’s understanding of emptiness ceases to be an intellectual construct and becomes a valid direct perception.[1] To put it another way, when a person ceases to reify phenomena in terms of the four extremes, that is the direct perception of emptiness. Until that point, one’s ‘emptiness’ remains an intellectual sequence of negations, accurate perhaps, but conceptual nevertheless. Realizing emptiness here in Dzogchen has the same meaning as realizing emptiness in any other Mahāyāna school.

The recognition of rigpa is a recognition of clarity. It is simply, the knowledge (rig pa) about one’s state as a working basis for practice. That recognition of rigpa (knowledge of the basis) does not require realization of emptiness as a prerequisite and can’t. If it did, no one who was not an ārya on the bhūmis could practice Dzogchen. So a proper understanding is required, but not the realization of emptiness. So this recognition, not being the same as the realization of emptiness of the path of seeing, is an example-wisdom only.

The realization of emptiness is also not a requirement for the basic requirement of trekchö, i.e. stable placement in a momentary unfabricated consciousness (ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma). Only a proper understanding of emptiness is required.

That understanding of emptiness, while necessary, is not at all the same thing as realizing emptiness. The experience of emptiness is experiencing a consciousness (shes pa) free of concepts, often referred to as recognizing the gap between two thoughts. If you follow the teaching of Chögyal Namkhai Norbu, terming this experience ‘Dharmakāya’ is a mistake. It is just an impermanent experience.

In terms of thögal and the four visions, one will not reach the third vision for as long as one continues to reify phenomena. This is the principal reason emphasis is placed on the basis of trekchö rather than the path of thögal in modern Dzogchen practice. If you are a first bhūmi bodhisattva and so on, then the four visions in Dzogchen will be very, very rapid. However, since there is no guarantee that one will realize emptiness merely through practicing trekchö, for this reason, practices such as tummo, etc. are also recommended.

[1] See the abhisamayālamkara for more details.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

1. “ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma”：见各藏文注释，此处译作“一瞬间不加修饰之意识”。

简体中文翻译：

Soh Wei Yu

rigpa kechigma 是初始未成熟的 vidyā 或 rigpa。

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/

krodha = Kyle Dixon

level 6

krodha

1 point ·

8 days ago

· edited 8 days ago

“If the nature of mind is realized”

有一系列可被认识与体证的层面，从 vidyā [rig pa] 到心性 [sems nyid]，两者在技术上并非同义，等等。其内，我们必须区分 ngo shes（认识）与 rtogs pa（体证），再到解脱 [grol ba]。对 sems nyid 的认识并非即为体证 sems nyid，就如初始以心理因子形式出现的 vidyā，即 rig pa skad cig ma，Norbu Rinpoche 所称的“瞬时临在”，其质性并不等同于那知晓心本质 [snying po] 的终极表达。

因此，这个议题实际上并非如此简单明了。

“这就是为何人们如此翻译第一境：‘显现内在实相’——（引自 His Holiness the Dalai Lama 的《Dzogchen》）关于第一境的说法；‘直接体验法性’——（引自《A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro》）。直接体验法性并不排除空性。”

是的，这个议题确实颇为有趣。第一境中 chos nyid 被译为 chos nyid mngon gsum “直接体验法性”，实际上与 sūtrayāna 中对法性的用法不同。在此，当我们看到 chos nyid 时，它表示 rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs（རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས），即“在直接体验中确认 vidyā”。因此，在第一境中，我们所指的法性并非空性，而是用以指示通过直接体验（pratyaksa）所确定的 rigpa 显现。

当空性得到全面体证时，便进入第三境，被称为“vidyā 的圆满”，因为那时，体证空性与不生法性后，我们对诸法的知识 [vidyā] 已圆满，达到了“圆满境”。

level 7

“我们没有任何误解。再次说明，这是修辞与实相的区别，直至第三境，“空性”仍然模糊，因此在直接传授时仅仅是修辞。心性，作为非二元清明与空性，直到第三境才真切体证，依 Longchenpa、Khenpo Ngachung 等所述，并非我凭空捏造。我们在直接传授中通常认识到的是清明 [gsal ba]，以及伴随清明而来的 vidyā 面相。vidyā 是支撑我们修行的，但 vidyā 并非 citta dharmatā，即心性。

这就是为何前两个光明相类似于 śamatha（止寂），而后两个光明相类似于 vipaśyanā（毘婆舍那，意为开启正智，正确观照诸法，而断灭诸结烦恼）。”

“我从未见过有人在直接传授时体证空性。倒是见过很多人认识到 rigpa kechigma。

我不敢自诩比 Longchenpa 与 Khenpo Ngachung 等大师更懂，他们均指出空性直到第三境时才真正体证，诸如此类。你若另有见解，我们可以各持己见。”

— Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon：“有人问：

‘大家好！🤗

我在理解作为 AtR 阶段定义中 Rigpa 的那看似简单的概念时遇到了困难。感觉它就像我所处的“我在”阶段，但我觉得自己似乎遗漏了些什么。

我已阅读了那篇《对“Rigpa”术语的澄清》，但仍略感不确定和困惑。

谢谢🙏🏻’

Soh 回复道：

‘感觉确实像是“我在”阶段。’

你不能这么说，因为存在多种模式。Kyle Dixon 举例列出了 5 种类型的 rigpa (vidyā)。”

Krodha/Kyle Dixon 之前曾分享：

这仅仅是关于对知、寂、动三分法中初步洞见的认识 [ngo shes]。这便是以心理因子形式出现的瞬时临在（skad cig ma yi rig pa），即作为“寂动观察者”（gnas gyu shes pa）的 context 下的“不变背景”，在此背景上寂 [gnas pa] 与动 [gyu ba] 的“流动体验”得以发生。

这意味着上述讨论的是未成熟的 vidyā [tib. ma smin pa’i rig pa]。这种 vidyā 的模式必须通过 prajñā（智慧）体证而成熟，正如 Longchenpa 在 Tshig don mdzod 中所述：

“de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te”

此外，由基础而生的 vidyā [rig pa] 如同种子，其结果既可能导向解脱，也可能导向妄想，因此称之为“未成熟的 vidyā”：其将成熟为完全佛果的，是那体证其本质的 prajñā。”

无论它尚未成为“体证” [rtogs pa]，上述所描述的认识确实就是我们作为修行根基所采用的认知，但这种认知仅仅是基础，如同底层，需要培养、成熟和圆满。

…

Khenpo Jikphun 对这一段的评注曰：

“你拥有自然状态的基础 [gzhi]。该状态具有一种知识 [rig pa]，由于状态的动态性（非静态），自基础中闪现而出。它出现或闪现 [‘phags pa] 的模式 [tshul] 是不确定的 [ma nges pa]，因为此模式的性质会根据体证（与未体证）而变化。因此，这种 vidyā 状态 [rig pa] 被称为‘未成熟’ [ma smin pa]，因为它尚未通过 prajñā 或那实现其本质的崇高智慧而“成熟”。若有人未能认识到基础中那闪现（声音、光芒与光线）的本质，则会进入无明 [ma rig pa] 模式，从而误入妄想 [‘khrul pa]。若有人认识到这一闪现的本质（声音、光线作为我们自身自然显现 [rang snang]），则便进入 vidyā [rig pa] 与解脱 [grol ba] 的状态。这就是为何不确定性 [ma nges pa] 与未成熟 vidyā [ma smin pa’i rig pa] 的观念相联系。当那 vidyā 被清晰地体证之后，不确定性便消失了。”

如果我们仅仅认识到心的背景知能，就等于认识了清明 [gsal ba]。然而，我们尚未“体证”，因为我们还未体证诸法之性，或体证那终极的心性，而这种心性直到第三境才得体证（依 Khenpo Ngachung 等）。

我将“体证者”定义为对心性及诸法有知见的人。终极“体证”的 vidyā 表现实际上是一种 jñāna，即亲证事物本来面目的智慧，因此在 so so rang gyi rig pa’i ye shes 的语境中，即为 pratyaṭma vid（自內所證），如你所熟悉的……一种直觉到的个性化 jñāna。

在未成熟的 vidyā 中尚未出现 gnosis [jñāna]。它是 vidyā 的内在潜质，但尚未表现为一种活跃的认知方式，因为 rtsal 尚未被认识为自显 [rang snang]。相反，它外化并具体化为客观现象、人物、地点、事物、五大。只要内外二分仍然存在，个体在技术上就还未“体证”。

若你愿将瞬时临在的认识称为“体证”，我想你可以，但认识 [ngo shes]、体证 [rtogs pa] 与解脱 [grol ba] 这三者的组合是有其缘由的。

…

一个不变的背景，对照着不断变化的体验，这是最初的认知（rigpa），但并非成熟的认知。在真正体证到寂静平衡中，没有不变背景，也没有变化的体验。

…

这就是最初形式的 rigpa，虽然不是“终极”形式。终极形式与 prajñā [藏文 shes rab] 同义。

进一步解说：

Norbu Rinpoche（我的根本上师）在上述引文中讨论 rig pa 时，是以 gnas gyu rig gsum（知、寂、动三分）的语境来说明的。此处的 rigpa 定义为 gnas gyu shes pa，即“寂动之知”。Norbu Rinpoche 在其著作中明确指出，这种初始形式的 rigpa 仅仅是对自己心识清明的领会，因此称之为“rigpa”，因为它是 shes pa（知）的一个种类。

这种种类的 rigpa 是可以被认识并作为修行根基的可接受形式，但它尚未达到伴随 ye shes [梵文 jñāna] 的觉悟形态。这种初步表达的 rigpa，作为单纯心识清明的表现，是一种较粗的 rigpa，表现为由 Vimalamitra 所称的意识 [vijñāna] 识聚；他称之为 “领会特性的 vidyā”。Vimalamitra 将这种 rigpa 定义为“那种把现象归为普遍性、仅仅视为个人名相的 vidyā，即那种被无数认知玷污的、单纯非概念化的自知觉。” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 称这种 rigpa 为“被误认为虚幻心”的 rigpa，并亦以 Vimalamitra 所赋予的名称来称呼它，即“领会特性的 vidyā”。

Jean-Luc Achard 将这种 rigpa 称为“未成熟”或“不成熟的 rigpa” [藏文 ma smin pa’i rig pa]。

Tsoknyi Rinpoche 则明确指出，我们不应将这种初步形式的 rigpa 与终极觉悟的 rigpa 混为一谈：

这种初期知觉或观察心是否仍有寂静或念头发生的阶段，也称为 rigpa。然而，它的含义不同于 Dzogchen 所说的本觉智[rang byung rig pa]。

他的父亲，Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche 亦如此说明：

在寂静（无念）、念头发生及知觉（观察）中，rigpa 一词用于指观察。而本觉智亦称为 rigpa。词虽相同，含义却不同。这两种修行的区别，就如同天与地之间的距离一般浩大。”

原文：

“Soh Wei Yu

rigpa kechigma is the initial unripened vidya or rigpa.

https://www.reddit.com/user/krodha/

krodha = kyle dixon

level 6

krodha

1 point ·

8 days ago

· edited 8 days ago

“If the nature of mind is realized”

There is a spectrum of aspects that can be recognized and realized, from vidyā [rig pa] to the nature of mind [sems nyid], the two are not technically synonymous, and so on. Then, within that we must differentiate ngo shes, to recognize; and rtogs pa, to realize, and then liberation [grol ba]. Recognition of sems nyid is not the realization of sems nyid, just as the initial vidyā in the form of a mental factor as rig pa skad cig ma, what Norbu Rinpoche called “instant presence” is not qualitatively the same as the definitive expression of vidyā that knows the essence [snying po] of mind.

Therefore this topic really is not so cut and dry.

“That’s why people translate the first vision the way they do.. “manifest intrinsic reality” – (from Dzogchen by His Holiness the Dalai Lama) on the first vision. “the direct experience of dharmata” – (from A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro) The direct experience of dharmata doesn’t exclude emptiness.”

Yes, well, this topic is also quite interesting. The use of chos nyid in the first vision as chos nyid mngon gsum “the direct perception of dharmatā” is actually a different use of dharmatā than sūtrayāna. Here, when we see chos nyid it indicates rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs (རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས), “confirming vidyā in a direct perception.” Therefore in the case of the first vision, we are not referring to dharmatā as emptiness, but rather dharmatā is a term being used to indicate the appearances of rig pa that are ascertained in a direct perception [pratyaksa].

The total realization of emptiness does not then occur until the third vision, which is called “the full measure of vidyā” because at that time, upon realizing emptiness and non-arising, our knowledge [vidyā] of phenomena is complete, and has reached its “full measure.”

level 7

“We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind.

This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā.

“I’ve never met anyone who gained any insight into emptiness at direct introduction. Plenty who recognized rigpa kechigma though.

I don’t presume to know better than luminaries like Longchenpa and Khenpo Ngachung who state emptiness isn’t actually known until third vision and so on. You may presume otherwise and in that case we can agree to disagree.”

• Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon: “Someone asked:

Hello everyone!🤗

I’m having difficulties understanding an apparently simple thing that being Rigpa as a corresponding definition to AtR stages. It pretty much feels like the “I am” stage I’m in but I wanted to ask because I have the feeling I’m missing something.

I’ve read the post “Clarification on the Term “Rigpa” written on AtR…but still a little unsure and confused.

Thank you 🙏🏻

Soh replied:

“It pretty much feels like the “I am” stage”

You can’t say that because there are modalities. Kyle Dixon listed 5 types of rigpas (vidya) for example.

Krodha/Kyle Dixon shared before:

It would only be a recognition [ngo shes] regarding preliminary insight into the triune division of knowing, stillness and movement [gnas gyu rig gsum]. This would be vidyā qua mental factor as instant presence [skad cig ma yi rig pa] in the context of being the “observer of stillness and movement” [gnas gyu shes pa], described above as the “unchanging background” against which the “shifting experience(s)” of stillness [gnas pa] and movement [gyu ba] occur.

This means the above is discussing unripened vidyā [ma smin pa’i rig pa]. This modality of vidyā must be ripened by prajñā of realization, as Longchenpa states in the Tshig don mdzod:

“de yang gzhi nas ’phags pa’i rig pa sa bon lta bu grol ’khrul gang byed ma nges pas ma smin pa’i rig pa zhes bya ste/ /sangs rgyas su smin par byed pa ni rtogs pa’i shes rab kyis byas te

Furthermore, since the vidyā [rig pa] that arises from the basis is like a seed, uncertain to produce either liberation or delusion, it is called “unripened vidyā”: that which will mature it into full buddhahood is the prajñā of realization.”

Regardless of not yet being “realization” [rtogs pa], the above described recognition is indeed the view that we implement as a foundation for practice, but that view is the ground floor so to speak, it must be cultivated, and must mature and ripen.

…

Khenpo Jikphun’s commentary on that section reads:

“You have the basis [gzhi] of the natural state. That state has a knowledge [rig pa] which, owing to the dynamism of the state (which is not static), flashes out of the basis. The mode [tshul] in which it arises or flashes [‘phags pa] out of the basis is uncertain [ma nges pa] since the nature of this mode will vary according to realization (and non-realization). Therefore this state of vidyā [rig pa] is styled as “unripened” [ma smin pa] because it has not yet been “brought to maturity” through the prajñā or sublime knowledge that realises its very nature. In case one does not recognize the nature of the epiphany (sounds, rays and lights) of the basis, one enters the mode [tshul] of ignorance [ma rig pa] and one errs into delusion [‘khrul pa]. If one recognizes the nature of this epiphany (sounds, rays and lights as being our own natural manifestations [rang snang]), then one enters the mode of vidyā [rig pa] and that of liberation [grol ba]. This is why uncertainty [ma nges pa] is associated with the notion of unripened vidyā [ma smin pa’i rig pa]. When that vidyā is clearly experienced for what it is, then there is no uncertainty anymore.”

If we have merely recognized the background knowing capacity of the mind we have recognized clarity [gsal ba]. We are not yet “realized” however in the sense that we haven’t realized the nature of phenomena, or the definitive nature of mind which is not realized until third vision per Khenpo Ngachung et al.

I define a “realized” person as someone who has a knowledge of the nature of mind and phenomena. The definitive “realized” expression of vidyā is actually a jñāna that experientially sees the way things really are for oneself, hence pratyātma vid in the context of so so rang gyi rig pa’i ye shes [pratyatmyavedanajñāna] as you’re familiar with… a personality intuited jñāna.

There is no gnosis [jñāna] yet present in unripened vidyā. It is innate to vidyā but not yet expressed as an active modality of cognition because rtsal has not been recognized as self-display [rang snang]. Rather it is externalized and concretized as objective phenomena, persons, places, things, the five elements. As long as there is still a bifurcation of internal and external dbyings, the individual is not yet technically “realized.”

If you want to call recognition of instant presence “realization” I suppose you can, but the trifecta of recognition [ngo shes], realization [rtogs pa] and liberation [grol ba] is instituted for a reason.

…

An unchanging background against which shifting experiences occur is the initial view. It is not a matured view. There is no unchanging background or shifting experience in truly realized equipoise.

…

That is the initial form of rigpa yes, not the “definitive” type though. The definitive form is synonymous with prajñā [tib. shes rab].

To unpack further:

Norbu Rinpoche, who is my own root teacher, in the quote above is discussing rig pa in the context of gnas gyu rig gsum or the trio of knowing, stillness of thought and movement of thought. Rigpa in that context is defined as gnas gyu shes pa or the “knowing of stillness and movement.” In his own writing Norbu Rinpoche is quite clear that this initial form of rigpa is simply the clarity or cognizance of one’s own mind, thus it is termed “rig pa” because it is a species of shes pa or knowing.

This species of rigpa is an acceptable form of rigpa that one can recognize and use as a foundation for one’s practice, however it is not yet the awakened form of rigpa which is accompanied by ye shes [skt. jñana]. This preliminary expression of rigpa, as the mere clarity of mind is a coarse expression of rigpa appearing as the consciousness [vijñāna] skandha, called by Vimalamitra; ”The vidyā that apprehends characteristics.” Vimalamitra defines this rigpa as ”the vidyā [rig pa] that imputes phenomena as universals and as mere personal names, which is one’s mere non-conceptual self-knowing awareness defiled by many cognitions.” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu calls this modality of rigpa: ”rigpa mistaken as illusory mind”, and also refers to it by the name Vimalamitra gave it, which is again: ”the vidyā that apprehends characteristics.”

Jean-Luc Achard defines this species of rigpa as “unripened” or “immature” rigpa [tib. ma smin pa’i rig pa].

Tsoknyi Rinpoche is quite clear that we should not conflate this preliminary form of rigpa for the definitive and awakened expression of rigpa:

This early stage of knowing or noticing whether there is stillness [of mind] or thought occurrence is also called rigpa. However, it is not the same meaning of rigpa as the Dzogchen sense of self-existing [self-originated] awareness [rang byung rig pa].

His father, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said the same:

In the case of stillness [lack of thought], occurrence [thought] and noticing [the knowing], the word rigpa is used for noticing. Self-existing [self-originated] awareness is also called rigpa. The word is the same but the meaning is different. The difference between these two practices is as vast as the distance between sky and earth.”

脚注/附注（如果有）：

无

【注释】

本文中涉及的佛教及 Dzogchen 术语（如 rigpa、明心、见性、空性、ngo shes、rtogs pa、grol ba、gsal ba 等）均依据目前通行译法处理。如有疑问，请参阅相关经典或权威译本。

【结束】

请注意：如需后续部分，请告知继续。