以下翻譯將嚴格遵循您的指示，對每段原文先給出完整的簡體中文譯文，然后緊接著提供完整、未刪減的原文段落。如果篇幅超出單條消息限制，我會在消息末尾注明“[在下一條消息中繼續]”，并在后續消息中不加任何省略地繼續翻譯。所有佛教術語的翻譯會盡量遵循您提供的對照表與指示，保持一致性與完整性。

段落 1

簡體中文翻譯：

達賴喇嘛論大圓滿（Dzogchen）、大手印（Mahāmudrā）、空性以及佛性

Soh

另見：達賴喇嘛在新書中關于無我（anatta）和佛性空性的論述

剛才與 Yin Ling 討論時，我重新閱讀了達賴喇嘛著作中的一段文字。感覺很好，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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 2

簡體中文翻譯：

**尊者達賴喇嘛（HHDL）：

大圓滿（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）**

原文：

**“HHDL:

Dzogchen and Mahāmudrā”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 3

簡體中文翻譯：

根據經教的觀點，僅僅禪修心性中的明凈覺知或禪修轉化的佛性，并不能斷除煩惱。然而，這確實會令我們更加確信煩惱并非心中本具的一部分，從而生起成佛的可能性。進而，這會引導我們去思考：是什么染污了心？又有什么方法能夠徹底消除這些染污？為了尋求凈化轉化之佛性的途徑，我們會修習了悟無自性的空性的智慧，并斷除無明。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 4

簡體中文翻譯：

根據大圓滿（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的觀點，通過禪修心性中的明凈覺知，可能會令粗分之氣息融化，從而令最微細的光明心顯現。當這種情況發生時，若修行人先前已經修習了對空性的正確了悟，便會將這種領悟融入禪修，并以自性光明心來證悟空性，從而遣除煩惱。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 5

簡體中文翻譯：

從大圓滿（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的角度，正確理解《寶性論》（Sublime Continuum）非常重要。有些人對其作字面上的理解，錯誤地認為本初智慧是常住的、本質上自存的，不依賴任何其他因素，也不依因緣而生。然后他們會說出類似“如果你解開這個秘密，你就得解脫”這樣的話。

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.’”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 6

簡體中文翻譯：

多智欽·吉美丹貝尼瑪（1865–1926）及其弟子楚臣桑波（1884–大約1957年）是大圓滿（Dzogchen）的偉大學者兼修行者，他們說，僅僅因為我們具備這種本初智慧，并不足以使我們自行解脫。為什么呢？因為在臨終時，其他一切心識都已經融入，只剩下最本初的心。雖然在我們于輪回中所經歷的無數次死亡里，它都曾顯現過，但這并沒有幫助我們成就佛果。這兩位大德說，要成就佛果，必須運用這本初智慧來證悟空性；只有如此才能令我們得以解脫。這一點與宗喀巴大師的見解相一致。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 7

簡體中文翻譯：

有些關于大圓滿（Dzogchen）和大手印（Mahāmudrā）的注釋說：安住于煩惱中的這份智慧就是真實智慧，基于這一點，每一個有情本來即是佛。雖然我們從無始以來就是佛，但仍需要再次被“喚醒”。我們現有的智慧就是佛陀的遍知心，每一位有情眾生都內在具足佛的三身。他們說，有情具足一個本具清凈的基質，這并不僅僅是空性，而是具足三方面：它的本體是法身——即清凈智慧的安住方式；它的本性是受用身——也就是此心識的顯現面；而悲心是化身——即它的流露或表現。總之，他們宣稱這三種佛身在我們的平常狀態中都已圓滿具足，只是因為被障蔽，我們才無法覺知到它們的存在。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 8

簡體中文翻譯：

如果將這些說法照字面理解，會帶來很多問題。有些人會持偏頗且不公正的批判，只駁斥某些教派中的錯誤見解；而章嘉·羅追多吉（Changkya Rolpai Dorje，1717–86）則相當公正，他指出了所有四個藏傳佛教傳統（包括他自己的格魯派）中可能出現的錯誤闡釋。在他所寫的《見道體驗之歌》（Song of the Experience of the View）里，他表示：“我說這些并非對那些上師不敬，只是可能他們沒有太多機會廣泛研習大論典，也沒能準確地使用某些術語。”換言之，他們所宣說的困難在于，他們廣泛使用了一些術語，卻沒能依憑大論典的權威。當然，章嘉的評語并不適用于像多智欽·吉美丹貝尼瑪和他的上師阿瓦·旁楚（Awa Pangchu）這樣的真正大圓滿（Dzogchen）行者和學者，因為他們曾深入研習與檢證大論典，并在此基礎上安立他們對大圓滿的理解。他們的詮釋和著述都非常杰出。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

[在下一條消息中繼續]

以下繼續逐段翻譯。上條消息中我們已經完成至“他們的詮釋和著述都非常杰出。”的段落。現在從下一段開始，如下所示：

段落 9

簡體中文翻譯：

**藏傳佛教四大傳承都教授一種探尋心的方法——探究它從何而來、向何處去、它的形狀和顏色是什么等等。談到這一共同的修行法門，章嘉·羅追多吉說，當我們以這樣的方式尋找后，就發現心并不是實質性的，缺乏顏色和形狀，也并非來自某處或前往某處。了解這一點后，修行者會產生一種空無的體驗。然而，這種“空無”并不是心之究竟實相即無自性的空性，而僅僅是心并非實質物體的缺失。即便有人認為這種“空無”就是究竟實相并在那種狀態中長時間禪修，其實那并不是在修持心之究竟本性。

禪修心的方法有兩種。第一種如前所述，通過檢驗心是否具有顏色、形狀、位置、可觸性等等，來觀察心的相狀，從而感受到心在世俗層面并不具備這些特質。第二種則是修持心之究竟本性，通過探究心的究竟安立方式，體認心的無自性空性。若有人混淆了這兩種禪修方式，誤以為心沒有實質性、沒有顏色等特征就是心的究竟本性，那么他們可能會批評諸如陳那（Dignāga）和法稱（Dharmakīrti）等大師對辯論、理則以及推理所做的精細闡釋，認為這些只會增加妄想。貢塘·貢卻丹貝絳美（1762–1823）——另一位對西藏佛教各傳統都能公平分析的大德——對此感到驚訝。**

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.”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 10

簡體中文翻譯：

有些人認為，在修行的道路上無需理性思辨或考察，只要對上師具足信心并獲得加持，就能令本初智慧生起。基于這一點，我對于如今設立更多講授印度與西藏傳統哲學典籍的學術院校（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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 11

簡體中文翻譯：

有些西方人同樣不重視佛法的學習與探究，也許是因為佛法在西方還相對新穎。缺乏對佛法的整體理解，人們往往會尋求最容易、最短捷的成道之路，一條不需要舍棄執著的道路。這樣的態度在藏人當中也同樣存在。宗喀巴大師曾說，許多人認為佛陀所具足的功德很令人敬畏，但當善知識借由理證與經教來闡明獲得這些功德的修行之道時，他們就會心生退縮，說：“誰能真的成就那樣的證悟呢？”

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?’”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 12（標題）

簡體中文翻譯：

我們已經是佛了嗎？

原文：

“Are We Already Buddhas?”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 13

簡體中文翻譯：

**在《如來藏經》（Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra）中，佛陀開示，每一個有情眾生都具足一個常住、堅固、不壞并且長存的如來藏（tathāgatagarbha），這如來藏即是全然具足三十二相之佛身。于是便會產生這樣的問題：如果我們內在已經現證一尊佛，那我們豈不是“無明的佛”嗎？若我們此刻就已然是佛，那么修行之道又有何意義？如果我們本來就是佛，可仍需凈化煩惱，那么豈不是說佛也有煩惱嗎？如果我們具足一個常住、堅固、不壞的本體，那這難道不會與無我教義相違，從而更像是外道所說的神我或靈魂嗎？

大慧（Mahāmati）在《楞伽經》（Descent into Lanka Sūtra）中對佛陀表達了同樣的疑問：

“如來藏（tathāgatagarbha）如佛在某些經中所說，被譽為本性清凈、自始至終清凈，并且本自具足三十二相，恒住在所有有情的身中。若它如被污穢的布包裹的寶石一般——亦即被蘊、界、處之所包裹、染污，且為貪、嗔、癡所困，亦以種種妄想之染污所遮蔽，并且常住、堅固、不壞——那這樣所宣說的‘如來藏’，與外道所說的‘我’又有何區別呢？”（注：該段經文意譯，問題本身來自大慧的疑問）**

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”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

[注]：此處引用的腳注編號 88 在原文中用于引用經文出處，此處保持原樣，不做改動。

[在下一條消息中繼續]

以下繼續逐段翻譯。上條消息中我們已經完成至“若它如被污穢的布包裹的寶石一般……”的段落。現在從下一段（第14段）開始，如下所示：

段落 14

簡體中文翻譯：

有些藏地學者將“常住、堅固和不壞的佛性”這一說法照字面理解，認為這是究竟了義的教示。而中觀應成派（Prāsaṅgika）則承接前文大慧（Mahāmati）提出的疑問，視此說為不了義的教授。應成派并非隨意這么斷言，而是通過考量以下三點：

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 15

簡體中文翻譯：

(1) 佛陀在說此番話時，最終想要表達的本意是什么？

當佛陀說每個眾生都具足常住、堅固和不壞的本性時，他真正想講的是：心的空性，即自然安住的佛性，才是真正常住、堅固和不壞的。正因為心是無自性而煩惱是客塵，所以成佛才成為可能。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 16

簡體中文翻譯：

(2) 佛陀為何這樣說？

佛陀之所以宣說常住、堅固和不壞、具足三十二相的本性，是為了安撫某些人對無我的恐懼，并逐漸引導外道信眾通達如如實相。此時，這些根機尚淺的人覺得常住本體比較容易理解，而對空性無自性（他們誤以為那意味著萬法全然不存在）卻心生畏懼，害怕證悟空性會令自己全然消失或不復存在。為平息他們的恐懼，佛陀以符合他們現有觀念的方式來開示；待他們根機成熟后，才會教授究竟義的內涵。這就像慈愛的父母對年幼的孩子會簡化某些復雜理念，好讓孩子可以逐步接受。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 17

簡體中文翻譯：

(3) 如果將這一說法照字面解釋，會引發哪些理性上的矛盾？

若把“常住、堅固、不壞的佛性”視為直指事實，就會與佛在《般若經》中所闡釋的空性與無我究竟義相沖突。在這些經中，佛陀提出眾多理據來否定這種見解。此外，若照字面理解此說法，佛陀的教法便會與主張常住自我的外道學說無異。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 18

簡體中文翻譯：

**無自性之空性——亦即心的究竟實相與自然清凈——普遍存在于所有有情之中。基于此才說“佛存在于眾生當中”。但“佛陀的究竟實相”并不存在于眾生之中。固然，佛與眾生在“心之究竟本性”是空性這一點上沒有差別，但兩者的究竟實相并不相同：前者是佛陀之心的究竟實相——法身，而后者是仍被染污的心之究竟實相。若說法身實實在在地存在于眾生之中，那么與之同體的智慧法身亦必然在眾生之中，如此一來就意味著眾生具備遍知，這顯然與事實不符！

同理，若說離一切煩惱的境界已在凡夫眾生之中，就沒有理由使他們不能直接現觀自心的自然清凈。他們理應能夠親證空性。但事實并非如此。**

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.”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 19

簡體中文翻譯：

有人說具足二種清凈（自然清凈以及已斷除所有煩惱之清凈）的法身存在于眾生的相續之中，但由于眾生被障蔽，所以無法見到它。若事實如此，那么究竟是誰的心被凈化，誰又得到解脫并成就了斷除一切煩惱的清凈？如果眾生從無始以來就已具足法身，那就無須修道、無須凈化自心，因為他們自始至終都不曾被任何客塵染污。

主張如來具有三十二相并圓滿存在于眾生相續之中的觀點，與有神論者所說的永恒清凈、不變的自我別無二致。假如我們與生俱來的確具有三十二相，那說我們還需要通過修道來創造三十二相的因緣就自相矛盾。若有人說這些相本來就在我們之中，只是未顯現，還需要使之顯現，這就類似于數論派（Sāṃkhya）所謂的“從自體中生起（arising from self）”，也就是說，雖然已然存在，卻還要再次生起以顯現。龍樹菩薩及其追隨者們已透過種種理證駁斥了“自生論”。

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.”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 20

簡體中文翻譯：

**經文接著記載了佛陀對此的回應：

“大慧啊，我所宣說的如來藏并不與外道所說的‘我’相同。大慧啊，如來、阿羅漢、正等正覺者們以空性、究竟清凈、涅槃、不生、無相、無愿等詞語來表示如來藏，（這樣做）是為了令幼稚的有情完全斷除對無我的恐懼，（并且）為了開顯無分別境界、無所顯現的境地。”89

我們從這里看到，佛陀會依據不同眾生當下所需以及長遠利益，以各種不同的方式來開示教法。此外，我們也應當深入思維這些教言，從不同角度進行探究，并結合理證與對其他經文的學習，以辨別何為究竟意義。我們學佛性，是為了明白心本不具缺陷，而且事實上它可以被圓滿凈化與成就。不僅如此，心也并非只是可以轉化，而是它已具備某種能夠被凈化并成就的部分。了解這一點會令我們對修行的信心和動力大增，從而運用各種方法來凈化與圓滿這顆心，使之成為全然覺悟的佛心。**

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.”**

腳注/附注（如果有）：

[注]：89處腳注內容為原文標注，這里原樣保留。

段落 21（標題“REFLECTION”）

簡體中文翻譯：

思考：

原文：

“REFLECTION”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 22

簡體中文翻譯：

“住于煩惱中的無垢智慧”意味著什么？

難道我們已經是智慧圓滿的佛，但卻自己不知道嗎？

佛陀會有煩惱嗎？

佛陀說在我們每個人當中都有一個常住、堅固、不壞的佛性。他這么說的最終旨意是什么？他說這些的目的是什么？

若將這句話照字面來理解，會產生怎樣的理性矛盾？

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?”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 23

簡體中文翻譯：

拉瑪·達賴喇嘛；秋尊·圖登（Chodron, Thubten）所著：《輪回、涅槃與佛性》（《智慧與慈悲文庫》第3卷）（第372頁），智慧出版（Wisdom Publications），Kindle電子版。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 24（破折線段落）

簡體中文翻譯：

——

原文：

“——”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 25

簡體中文翻譯：

更新于2025年：Nafis給我發來達賴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 - ”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

[在下一條消息中繼續]

以下繼續逐段翻譯。上條消息中我們已經完成至“更新于2025年：Nafis給我發來達賴喇嘛在另一部著作中的一段精彩引文——”的段落。現在從下一段開始，如下所示：

段落 26

簡體中文翻譯：

一個普通人死時所經歷的光明，被稱為“有分別”（conceptual），在此處意味著心仍是被障蔽的。當普通有情在死亡時經歷最本初的自性光明心時，他們并沒有覺知到此心正所緣的境。有些學者主張此時死亡的光明心所現起的是空性，但并不能被明確了知；另一些學者則說，它所緣的是一種與空性相似，卻并非無自性空性的虛空境。無論如何，在死亡光明顯現時，暫時看似不顯的無明遲早會再度出現，八十種標志性的分別念以及其他煩惱也會在中陰和下一生中再度現行。然而，一個已在密乘法門上勤修不輟之人，可以利用這種自然狀態的“無明不顯”，在光明中修習對空性的禪定。對于尚未受過此種訓練的凡夫而言，當光明現前時就如同昏厥了一樣。他們既無法了知此光明的臨在，也無法運用它來修行。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 27

簡體中文翻譯：

一些成就很高的修行者在呼吸停止后，仍能在臨終的光明中安住數日，甚至有些人因此而獲得某些證悟，乃至究竟圓滿的覺悟。然而，在臨終時能留駐于光明之中，并不一定就表明他們擁有密乘瑜伽的修證。有些看似并非瑜伽行者的人——盡管他們生前也許曾在某種程度上體驗過光明——卻仍可由于其他因緣而留駐在光明中。最有可能的原因是他們所積累善業的力量。即便如此，如果他們沒有證悟空性的智慧，也無法從留駐在光明中的狀態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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 28

簡體中文翻譯：

所有的大德都強調了解心性的關鍵意義。這里所說的“心性”，指的是示現比喻光明（example clear light）以及真正的光明——也就是在圓滿次第（completion stage）中能夠證悟空性的那些心識狀態。能夠實現這一點的瑜伽師已經十分接近佛地。此等心識遠比波羅蜜乘（Pāramitāyāna）所運用的心識更加微細。真正的光明心是本初自性光明心，了悟空性之時，依靠將所有氣息融入心輪正中央的中脈而使之完全顯現出來。而且，就其所證得的空性所依來說，與尋常的五蘊等染污所依不同，它所依的是經過凈化后的最極微細之心。總之，在圓滿次第的高階位上，本初自性光明心了悟其自身的空性，借此獲得特別的力量，從而將一切煩惱從心中徹底斷除。此時所證之能取（最微細之心）與所取（空性）皆得清凈。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 29

簡體中文翻譯：

這就是在密續中所說的“了悟心性”的含義；這樣的證悟能令我們迅速抵達究竟圓滿的覺悟，也就是我們的最終目標。甘波巴（Gampopa）初次見到密勒日巴（Milarepa）時，曾夸口說自己擁有極其穩固的奢摩他定力。密勒日巴答道：“那很不錯，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.’”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

段落 30

簡體中文翻譯：

標簽：佛性、空性、達賴喇嘛陛下 |

原文：

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

”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

結尾說明

以上即是全部翻譯內容。至此，已將您提供的全部英文原文逐段翻譯成簡體中文，并在每個段落翻譯之后緊跟原文，對照且無任何省略或刪減。

額外簡短說明

關于關鍵概念：

• “心性”在上述文中指“自然安住的覺知與明凈”，也是“大圓滿”和“大手印”中核心修行的對象。

• “本初智慧”并非恒常不變之實體，而是指能夠徹見空性并遣除煩惱的極微細心或明覺。

• “如來藏”或“佛性”并非與外道所說的永恒獨立之神我相同，乃是指依空性與客塵煩惱的可斷盡性而言，有情可以圓滿成佛。

書目參考：

• 達賴喇嘛、圖登秋尊著：《輪回、涅槃與佛性》（《智慧與慈悲文庫》第3卷），Wisdom Publications 電子版。

如有其它疑問，歡迎提問。祝法喜充滿。

以下為翻譯內容，按照初始提示逐段完整呈現：

簡體中文翻譯：

此外，與此相關的還有：

原文：

“Also relevant:

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

簡體中文翻譯：

Soh 寫信給 J 先生：正如 John Tan 之前所說，并且許多人（包括 Malcolm、達賴喇嘛等經歷過相似階段的人）也曾重申過……在修行過程中存在明顯的階段——覺知的實現（盡管 Malcolm 并不以相同方式使用此術語），即 rigpa 中那“未加修飾”的清明面相的實現，與空性的實現是截然不同的體證。甚至 Longchenpa 及其他 dzogchen 大師也會指出，空性的體證僅在 thodgal（透光）修法中于第三光明相時出現。

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

“thodgal”譯作“透光”，系 dzogchen 修法術語。

簡體中文翻譯：

John Tan 在回應 Malcolm 2020 年的一篇文章中寫道：

“這正如我對你所說的，并且本質上強調‘明心非見性。先明心，后見性。’

（Soh：‘明心’即領會心識，并非見其性；先領會心識，后體見本性。）

首先是直接認證心/識——明心（Soh：領會心識）。有一種直接的途徑，就像禪宗那種頓悟原始心、或大手印、或 dzogchen 直接傳授 rigpa，甚至是 advaita 中的自我探究——即不經中介、直接、即時地感知“識”，這一切都是相同的。

然而，那并非空性的體證。空性的體證即為見性（Soh：見性）。依我之見，雖然存在通向明心的直接途徑，但我尚未見過任何通向見性的直接途徑。如果你深入探究我們心識構造的深度與微妙之處，你將明白盲點是多么深邃和細膩。

因此，空性或“空性”（Soh：空性）是佛教與其他宗教之間的主要區別。雖然無我（anatta）是直接體驗空性的味道，但佛教的無我與其他宗教所強調的無我之間仍有差別——無論是僅僅是通過體驗自我解體而感受的無我，還是由空性智慧觸發的體驗。

前者側重于無我，其整個修行途徑都是為了消除自我，而后者則是活在空性智慧中，并將那空性洞見應用于萬法。

至于空性，有一種細微區別：一方面是宗喀巴所指的“看破自性見”，另一方面是 Gorampa 所說的“超越極端的空性”。兩者各有其深刻之處，因此不要胡說八道、以褻瀆之詞討論結果；歸根結底（依我之見），它們是相同的。”

原文：

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

“This is like what I tell you and essentially emphasizing 明心非見性. 先明心, 后見性. (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 見性 (Soh: Seeing Nature). Imo there is direct path to 明心 (Soh: Apprehending Mind) but I have not seen any direct path to 見性 (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).”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

1. “明心非見性. 先明心, 后見性”以及“空性”均按照已有譯法保留。

2. 此處 Tsongkhapa 譯為宗喀巴； Gorampa 譯為果朗巴。

簡體中文翻譯：

達賴喇嘛曾說：“本性——有許多不同的層次。常俗層面，即單一的本性；還有，你看，還有其他層次。然后是究竟層面，即終極實相……所以，只要體認心之清明，那就是常俗層面。這與印度教徒是相通的，所以我們必須了解這些不同層次……” —— 達賴喇嘛在新書中論及佛性無我與空性時如此表述。

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”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

簡體中文翻譯：

或者，正如 Kyle Dixon 就 trekchod（立斷(徹卻)）的觀點向 Malcolm 重申的那樣：

Kyle Dixon（見 Reddit 用戶 krodha）：

“是的，實際狀態的 trekchö 就是瑜伽直接觀空之非概念化平衡。未開悟者無法認識空性，但清明卻是可以知曉的。我們在練習 nominal trekchö（名義上 trekchö）時，直到我們體證空性，其運作都是依靠清明面相 [gsal cha]。名義上的‘小’ trekchö 亦稱為‘觀法瑜伽’。”

Malcolm 說：

“問題的表述不準確。Treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)）通常可概括為一種將空性洞見與止觀相結合的修法。但在見性之道之下，這種洞見是概念化的，基于直接傳授的示范智慧。然而，treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)） 中所觀的空性在未踏上見性之道前，也是推理所得。實際上，智慧圓滿、大手印、禪宗等與 treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)） 沒有區別。我聽說 Tulku Orgyen 曾斷言 treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)） 存在于所有法門中，也許 EPK 會慷慨確認這一點。究竟是什么使 treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)） 有別于其他傳授法門？treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)），猶如任何密法咒修法，都基于加持/傳授。”

“事實上，人所安住的是空性清明。然而，在見性之道之下，那清明中的空性是概念推理所得。但在修定時，我們僅僅安住于清明面相，而不陷入‘這是空的’之類的概念。我們早已知道它是空的，因為我們在心的 rushan 或漸頓空性的 semzin 中已作分析確認。”

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（立斷(徹卻)） 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（立斷(徹卻)） exists in all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What separates from treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)） from these other systems of the method of introduction. Treckhöd（立斷(徹卻)）, 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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

1. “trekchö”亦譯作“立斷(徹卻)”，下文中“nominal”譯為“名義上”，“gsal cha”為藏文音譯，保留原義。

2. 梵語samatha，音譯為奢摩他、舍摩他，又作止寂、等觀，意為止息一切妄念，心歸于專注一境的狀態。觀，梵語vipasyana，音譯為毘缽舍那、毘婆舍那，意為開啟正智，正確觀照諸法，而斷滅諸結煩惱。

簡體中文翻譯：

這是一版編輯自 Malcolm 2011 年關于該主題的發言。

認識 rigpa 與體證空性之間有何差別？

認識 rigpa 意味著你是一位修行者；體證空性意味著你是一位覺悟者（ārya）。

認識 rigpa 并不等同于進入第一地（bhūmi）上見性的道。見性之道是在一個人對空性的理解不再僅為知識構造、而轉為有效直接體驗的那一刻達到的。[1] 換句話說，當一個人不再將諸法以四極（四個極端）的形式實體化時，那便是對空性的直接體驗。直至那時，你的“空性”依舊只是一個否定序列的智識，或許是準確的，但依然是概念性的。這里在 Dzogchen 中體證的空性，與其他大乘法門中體證空性意義相同。

對 rigpa 的認識即為對清明的認識。它僅僅是關于自己作為修行基礎狀態的知識（rig pa）。這種對 rigpa 的認識（基礎知識）并不要求預先體證空性，亦無法要求如此。若真如此，則非 ārya 之人根本無法在各地修行 Dzogchen。所以，需要正確理解，但不要求體證空性。因此，這種認識，并非等同于見性之道中體證空性，只是一種范例智慧而已。

體證空性也并非 trekchö（立斷(徹卻)）的基本要求，即在一瞬間不加修飾之意識（ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma）的穩定安住。僅需對空性有正確的理解。

這種對空性的理解雖是必要條件，但絕非等同于體證空性。空性的體驗即為體驗一種不染概念的意識（shes pa），常被稱為察覺兩念之間的間隙。如果你遵循 Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 的教法，將這種體驗稱為“法身”（Dharmakāya）便是錯誤的；它僅是一種無常的體驗。

就 thögal（透光）及四光明相而言，只要你繼續將諸法實體化，就不會達到第三光明相。這也是現代 Dzogchen 修法中為何更強調 trekchö（立斷(徹卻)）基礎而非 thögal 道的主要原因。如果你是一位第一地菩薩等，那么 Dzogchen 中的四境會非常非常迅速。然而，由于僅靠 trekchö 修習無法保證必然體證空性，因此亦推薦 tummo 等修法。

[1] 詳見《阿毗舍摩羅伽羅》（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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

1. “ma bcos pa shes pa skad gcig ma”：見各藏文注釋，此處譯作“一瞬間不加修飾之意識”。

簡體中文翻譯：

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”

有一系列可被認識與體證的層面，從 vidyā [rig pa] 到心性 [sems nyid]，兩者在技術上并非同義，等等。其內，我們必須區分 ngo shes（認識）與 rtogs pa（體證），再到解脫 [grol ba]。對 sems nyid 的認識并非即為體證 sems nyid，就如初始以心理因子形式出現的 vidyā，即 rig pa skad cig ma，Norbu Rinpoche 所稱的“瞬時臨在”，其質性并不等同于那知曉心本質 [snying po] 的終極表達。

因此，這個議題實際上并非如此簡單明了。

“這就是為何人們如此翻譯第一境：‘顯現內在實相’——（引自 His Holiness the Dalai Lama 的《Dzogchen》）關于第一境的說法；‘直接體驗法性’——（引自《A Guide to the Practice of Ngöndro》）。直接體驗法性并不排除空性。”

是的，這個議題確實頗為有趣。第一境中 chos nyid 被譯為 chos nyid mngon gsum “直接體驗法性”，實際上與 sūtrayāna 中對法性的用法不同。在此，當我們看到 chos nyid 時，它表示 rig pa mngon sum du gtan la phebs（རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་དུ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབས），即“在直接體驗中確認 vidyā”。因此，在第一境中，我們所指的法性并非空性，而是用以指示通過直接體驗（pratyaksa）所確定的 rigpa 顯現。

當空性得到全面體證時，便進入第三境，被稱為“vidyā 的圓滿”，因為那時，體證空性與不生法性后，我們對諸法的知識 [vidyā] 已圓滿，達到了“圓滿境”。

level 7

“我們沒有任何誤解。再次說明，這是修辭與實相的區別，直至第三境，“空性”仍然模糊，因此在直接傳授時僅僅是修辭。心性，作為非二元清明與空性，直到第三境才真切體證，依 Longchenpa、Khenpo Ngachung 等所述，并非我憑空捏造。我們在直接傳授中通常認識到的是清明 [gsal ba]，以及伴隨清明而來的 vidyā 面相。vidyā 是支撐我們修行的，但 vidyā 并非 citta dharmatā，即心性。

這就是為何前兩個光明相類似于 śamatha（止寂），而后兩個光明相類似于 vipaśyanā（毘婆舍那，意為開啟正智，正確觀照諸法，而斷滅諸結煩惱）。”

“我從未見過有人在直接傳授時體證空性。倒是見過很多人認識到 rigpa kechigma。

我不敢自詡比 Longchenpa 與 Khenpo Ngachung 等大師更懂，他們均指出空性直到第三境時才真正體證，諸如此類。你若另有見解，我們可以各持己見。”

— Kyle Dixon

Kyle Dixon：“有人問：

‘大家好！🤗

我在理解作為 AtR 階段定義中 Rigpa 的那看似簡單的概念時遇到了困難。感覺它就像我所處的“我在”階段，但我覺得自己似乎遺漏了些什么。

我已閱讀了那篇《對“Rigpa”術語的澄清》，但仍略感不確定和困惑。

謝謝🙏🏻’

Soh 回復道：

‘感覺確實像是“我在”階段。’

你不能這么說，因為存在多種模式。Kyle Dixon 舉例列出了 5 種類型的 rigpa (vidyā)。”

Krodha/Kyle Dixon 之前曾分享：

這僅僅是關于對知、寂、動三分法中初步洞見的認識 [ngo shes]。這便是以心理因子形式出現的瞬時臨在（skad cig ma yi rig pa），即作為“寂動觀察者”（gnas gyu shes pa）的 context 下的“不變背景”，在此背景上寂 [gnas pa] 與動 [gyu ba] 的“流動體驗”得以發生。

這意味著上述討論的是未成熟的 vidyā [tib. ma smin pa’i rig pa]。這種 vidyā 的模式必須通過 prajñā（智慧）體證而成熟，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，由基礎而生的 vidyā [rig pa] 如同種子，其結果既可能導向解脫，也可能導向妄想，因此稱之為“未成熟的 vidyā”：其將成熟為完全佛果的，是那體證其本質的 prajñā。”

無論它尚未成為“體證” [rtogs pa]，上述所描述的認識確實就是我們作為修行根基所采用的認知，但這種認知僅僅是基礎，如同底層，需要培養、成熟和圓滿。

…

Khenpo Jikphun 對這一段的評注曰：

“你擁有自然狀態的基礎 [gzhi]。該狀態具有一種知識 [rig pa]，由于狀態的動態性（非靜態），自基礎中閃現而出。它出現或閃現 [‘phags pa] 的模式 [tshul] 是不確定的 [ma nges pa]，因為此模式的性質會根據體證（與未體證）而變化。因此，這種 vidyā 狀態 [rig pa] 被稱為‘未成熟’ [ma smin pa]，因為它尚未通過 prajñā 或那實現其本質的崇高智慧而“成熟”。若有人未能認識到基礎中那閃現（聲音、光芒與光線）的本質，則會進入無明 [ma rig pa] 模式，從而誤入妄想 [‘khrul pa]。若有人認識到這一閃現的本質（聲音、光線作為我們自身自然顯現 [rang snang]），則便進入 vidyā [rig pa] 與解脫 [grol ba] 的狀態。這就是為何不確定性 [ma nges pa] 與未成熟 vidyā [ma smin pa’i rig pa] 的觀念相聯系。當那 vidyā 被清晰地體證之后，不確定性便消失了。”

如果我們僅僅認識到心的背景知能，就等于認識了清明 [gsal ba]。然而，我們尚未“體證”，因為我們還未體證諸法之性，或體證那終極的心性，而這種心性直到第三境才得體證（依 Khenpo Ngachung 等）。

我將“體證者”定義為對心性及諸法有知見的人。終極“體證”的 vidyā 表現實際上是一種 jñāna，即親證事物本來面目的智慧，因此在 so so rang gyi rig pa’i ye shes 的語境中，即為 pratyaṭma vid（自內所證），如你所熟悉的……一種直覺到的個性化 jñāna。

在未成熟的 vidyā 中尚未出現 gnosis [jñāna]。它是 vidyā 的內在潛質，但尚未表現為一種活躍的認知方式，因為 rtsal 尚未被認識為自顯 [rang snang]。相反，它外化并具體化為客觀現象、人物、地點、事物、五大。只要內外二分仍然存在，個體在技術上就還未“體證”。

若你愿將瞬時臨在的認識稱為“體證”，我想你可以，但認識 [ngo shes]、體證 [rtogs pa] 與解脫 [grol ba] 這三者的組合是有其緣由的。

…

一個不變的背景，對照著不斷變化的體驗，這是最初的認知（rigpa），但并非成熟的認知。在真正體證到寂靜平衡中，沒有不變背景，也沒有變化的體驗。

…

這就是最初形式的 rigpa，雖然不是“終極”形式。終極形式與 prajñā [藏文 shes rab] 同義。

進一步解說：

Norbu Rinpoche（我的根本上師）在上述引文中討論 rig pa 時，是以 gnas gyu rig gsum（知、寂、動三分）的語境來說明的。此處的 rigpa 定義為 gnas gyu shes pa，即“寂動之知”。Norbu Rinpoche 在其著作中明確指出，這種初始形式的 rigpa 僅僅是對自己心識清明的領會，因此稱之為“rigpa”，因為它是 shes pa（知）的一個種類。

這種種類的 rigpa 是可以被認識并作為修行根基的可接受形式，但它尚未達到伴隨 ye shes [梵文 jñāna] 的覺悟形態。這種初步表達的 rigpa，作為單純心識清明的表現，是一種較粗的 rigpa，表現為由 Vimalamitra 所稱的意識 [vijñāna] 識聚；他稱之為 “領會特性的 vidyā”。Vimalamitra 將這種 rigpa 定義為“那種把現象歸為普遍性、僅僅視為個人名相的 vidyā，即那種被無數認知玷污的、單純非概念化的自知覺。” Chögyal Namkhai Norbu 稱這種 rigpa 為“被誤認為虛幻心”的 rigpa，并亦以 Vimalamitra 所賦予的名稱來稱呼它，即“領會特性的 vidyā”。

Jean-Luc Achard 將這種 rigpa 稱為“未成熟”或“不成熟的 rigpa” [藏文 ma smin pa’i rig pa]。

Tsoknyi Rinpoche 則明確指出，我們不應將這種初步形式的 rigpa 與終極覺悟的 rigpa 混為一談：

這種初期知覺或觀察心是否仍有寂靜或念頭發生的階段，也稱為 rigpa。然而，它的含義不同于 Dzogchen 所說的本覺智[rang byung rig pa]。

他的父親，Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche 亦如此說明：

在寂靜（無念）、念頭發生及知覺（觀察）中，rigpa 一詞用于指觀察。而本覺智亦稱為 rigpa。詞雖相同，含義卻不同。這兩種修行的區別，就如同天與地之間的距離一般浩大。”

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.”

腳注/附注（如果有）：

無

【注釋】

本文中涉及的佛教及 Dzogchen 術語（如 rigpa、明心、見性、空性、ngo shes、rtogs pa、grol ba、gsal ba 等）均依據目前通行譯法處理。如有疑問，請參閱相關經典或權威譯本。

【結束】

請注意：如需后續部分，請告知繼續。