Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), thangka-style artistic representation

Dzogchen pointing-out instruction · Private Tibetan-controlled working translation

རིག་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ཅེར་མཐོང་རང་གྲོལ་

Introduction to Vidyā: Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing

This instruction directs the reader to recognize the present nature of mind: nothing that can be grasped as a thing, yet vividly clear and directly present. It presents emptiness and clarity as inseparable, shows thoughts and appearances as arising without obstruction, and explains their self-liberation when their nature is recognized. From this recognition it unfolds view, meditation, conduct, fruition, and the natural perfection of the three kāyas.

According to the Nyingma treasure tradition, the teaching belongs to the cycle Profound Dharma, Self-Liberation of the Intent of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, attributed to Padmasambhava and revealed in the fourteenth century by Karma Lingpa.

Supplied Tibetan text online · Bodleian manuscript catalogue · Cycle background

Text, Cycle, and Transmission

This is not an isolated modern booklet. It is catalogued as a work within the Zabchö Shyitro Gongpa Rangdrol cycle. The Tibetan colophon attributes its composition to Padmasambhava and states that Karma Lingpa brought it forth from Mount Gampo Dar. Modern catalogues likewise identify the larger cycle as a fourteenth-century revelation associated with Karma Lingpa.

Padmasambhava

The colophon calls him the “Master of Oḍḍiyāna, Padmasambhava” and attributes the instruction to him. This article presents that as the text’s traditional attribution rather than as an independently established modern historical claim.

Karma Lingpa

The final line names Karma Lingpa as the accomplished treasure revealer who brought the text forth. External catalogues place the revelation of the larger cycle in the fourteenth century.

The larger cycle

The cycle also contains the group of bardo liberation texts popularly associated in the West with the Tibetan Book of the Dead. This particular instruction, however, is a distinct work devoted to directly introducing vidyā.

Catalogue checks: Buddhist Digital Resource Center · Karling Zhitro series · Cycle note and dating

Private Translation Status and Terminology Note

Private-use restriction: this independently prepared working translation is intended solely for Soh’s own reading and study. It is not prepared for publication, reposting, redistribution, or circulation. It should not be quoted, excerpted, forwarded, uploaded, circulated, or shared, in whole or in part. It is not a critical edition or an authorized translation.

Optional: Translation Method, Terminology, and Reading Guide

This revision follows the supplied Classical Tibetan line by line. This English working translation is the editable base, and the supplied Chinese translation is used only as a secondary diagnostic witness. Public English translations were not used to decide the body wording. Tibetan lexicons and terminology resources were consulted only to verify established Dharma terms or to classify an abnormal reading; they did not override the supplied Tibetan.

Reader-gloss convention: a square-bracketed span marked data-editorial-gloss="true" is an editorial accessibility aid, not additional Tibetan source content and not a replacement for the controlled translation. Removing such a span must leave the underlying controlled translation intact.

The broad terminological orientation of this independently prepared translation is inspired in part by conventions used by Ācārya Malcolm Smith in his Dzogchen translations and teaching materials. The translation itself was not written by him. Every sentence-level rendering, grammatical decision, textual judgment, and remaining error belongs solely to this working translation and must not be attributed to him; no authorship, review, approval, or endorsement by him is claimed. In this terminology-inspired register, rig pa is rendered mainly as vidyā, while ye shes corresponds to Sanskrit jñāna and is rendered “pristine consciousness.” The two Tibetan terms remain distinct. Nominal shes pa is generally rendered “consciousness,” while verbal forms are translated as “know” or “knowing” where English grammar requires. The lexical compound shes rig is rendered “knowing consciousness,” rather than being mechanically split into two coordinated nouns. The shared English word “consciousness” does not collapse ye shes, shes pa, or shes rig; their source forms and functions remain separately identified. Sems is “mind”; gsal ba and rang gsal are “clarity,” “clear,” and “self-clear”; ’od gsal is “luminosity”; and zang thal is “pellucid.” Rang rig is handled occurrence by occurrence. In the two compact rang rig shes pa occurrences, this revision retains shes pa as the nominal head “consciousness” and renders rang rig source-locally as “personally intuited”; this keeps those phrases distinct from the separately attested shes rig compound “knowing consciousness” and avoids inventing an inner observer or metaphysical Self. Other compact rang rig clusters are parsed occurrence by occurrence. Where rig remains a lexical head alongside ye shes or other adjacent technical terms, the English preserves the relevant vidyā and consciousness terminology rather than deleting a source family or silently imposing a relation. Where readable English requires an overt relation for a compact Tibetan compound, that relation is selected and disclosed occurrence by occurrence. The linked Wisdom materials identify only the broad terminological influence; their inclusion does not imply involvement in this translation. See Wisdom’s Dzogchen: Ten Key Terms, Buddhahood in This Life, and Yoga of the Natural State.

This revision applies that selected register source-locally to several obscure terms. A glossary or translator preference is treated as a register witness, not as a global substitution rule. Wisdom’s Malcolm Smith material gives dgongs pa as “transcendent state” specifically for the Dzogchen sense of uninterrupted contemplation; Batch95 therefore forbids using that gloss mechanically. In this text, rgyal ba’i dgongs pa in the direct-introduction clause and sangs rgyas dgongs pa in the clause saying it is beyond intellect are rendered contextually as “the Victors’ intent” and “the Buddha’s intent”. The proper cycle title zab chos zhi khro dgongs pa rang grol is likewise retained as Profound Dharma, Self-Liberation of the Intent of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, and in the colophon dgongs pa mdor bsdus is rendered as condensing the “intent” of the preceding tantras, transmissions, pith instructions, and experiences. These are local sense decisions, not a global equation of dgongs pa with “intent.” In the compact technical pair dbyings rig, Wisdom’s Malcolm Smith terminology table supplies the Tibetan→Sanskrit correspondence dbyings → dhātu, while its English field is an asterisk rather than an English gloss. This revision therefore retains the Sanskrit term dhātu in the English by source-local editorial choice and places it beside vidyā as the relation-neutral cluster dhātu · vidyā; the middle dot marks only a compact boundary and does not assert an overt Tibetan coordinator, genitive, identity, or apposition. It does not attribute “dhātu” to Malcolm as his English translation, and it is not a global replacement of dbyings. Thus chos kyi dbyings remains dharmadhātu, while the ordinary spatial phrase nam mkha’i dbyings is rendered simply “space”; “expanse” is not treated here as a Malcolm Smith technical equivalent for dbyings. Likewise, khams is contextual: khams gsum remains “the three realms,” while zhing khams is “buddhafield.” The opaque default “basic space” is not used. This revision also retains the selected distinction gdangs = “luminescence” and mdangs = “radiance.” In སྟོང་པའི་རང་གདངས་གསལ་བ་ལོངས་སྐུ་ཡིན༔, stong pa’i is the overt genitive, rang gdangs is the nominal natural-luminescence expression, and gsal ba supplies clarity; the saṃbhogakāya line therefore reads “The natural luminescence of emptiness is clear; it is the saṃbhogakāya,” preserving gsal ba as a predicate rather than folding it into a prenominal modifier, while the later mdangs passage retains “radiance.”

In snang ba thams cad sems kyi rig pas na, sems kyi is genitive and qualifies nominal rig pa; the causal ending applies to that compact nominal relation. This revision therefore reads “Since all appearances are mind’s vidyā,” rather than converting the genitive into the passive-agent construction “are cognized by mind.” The rendering is source-local and does not turn mind into a separate knower; it also remains distinct from the later line sems kyis snang ba, where the supplied Tibetan actually has instrumental sems kyis.

ཡིད་ཀྱི་བསམ་མཁན་ཁོ་རང་ཡིན་པ་ལ༔ explicitly contains the agent noun bsam mkhan, “the one who thinks,” and the reflexive pronoun kho rang, while yid kyi is genitive rather than locative. Earlier English attempts either made mind possess an inner “thinker” or produced the awkward “one doing the mind’s thinking.” R102 reads “Since the one who thinks is mind itself,” preserving the source-explicit deconstructive agent while making its identity with the immediately discussed mind explicit only as the contextual antecedent required by natural English. The following question then searches for that thinker and does not find it.

The colloquial lexical cluster rig rig tur tur po is treated as a whole expression rather than mechanically decomposed into independent tokens. Tibetan lexical evidence glosses the cluster with keen cognizance/awareness together with vivid clarity. Because the project register avoids using generic “awareness” for nontechnical rig when a less reifying English quality is available, the body reads “keenly cognizant and vividly clear.” This does not claim that the supplied Tibetan contains a separate gsal token; the clarity value belongs to the attested whole-cluster sense. The superseded “vividly awake and cognizant” introduced a wakefulness category not independently written in the source and obscured the cluster’s clarity value.

The source requires both compound recognition and predicate decomposition. Thus གསལ་རིག་, when it stands as the compact lexical expression, is rendered “clear cognizance” in this terminology-inspired register; but གསལ་རིག་སྟོང་གསུམ་ explicitly counts three members and is therefore rendered “clarity, cognizance, and emptiness—the three.” Similarly, རིག་ཅིང་གསལ་ preserves two predicates as “is cognizant and clear,” rather than collapsing them into a reified noun such as “luminous awareness.”

Reading key: the instruction does not ask the reader to establish an eternal observer. It explicitly searches for and fails to find the seer, meditator, actor, and accomplisher, while preserving the vivid clarity and cognizance of what is directly present.

Dharma terminology checkpoint

• Bsnyen sgrub is translated as “approach and accomplishment,” a standard tantric pair. It does not mean generation and completion, which would be bskyed rdzogs.
• Gzung ’dzin is rendered “the apprehended and the apprehender,” a standard Buddhist subject–object pair. The source explicitly names both poles here; the wording does not posit an enduring metaphysical subject.
• Bde gshegs snying po is rendered “sugata essence.” It belongs to the buddha-nature / tathāgatagarbha term family. The Tibetan is often conventionally back-translated as sugatagarbha, but the body does not present that back-translation as proof of an attested Sanskrit source reading. Later, sangs rgyas snying po is rendered “buddha-nature.” Within this terminology-inspired register, thig le nyag gcig is rendered “the sole unique tilaka,” rather than the earlier interpretive paraphrase.
• Dge sdig is rendered “virtue and nonvirtue,” the standard Buddhist ethical pair, rather than the less technical “virtue and wrongdoing.”
• Lhun grub is rendered “natural perfection” or “naturally perfect” within the selected terminology-inspired register. This is a protected technical rendering, not a claim that conditioned phenomena possess an intrinsic perfection.
• Rang byung is rendered “self-originated” in the selected Malcolm Smith-aligned register, including rang byung ye shes, “self-originated pristine consciousness.” This does not posit a metaphysical Self that causes itself. In the cloud analogy, the compact pair རང་བྱུང་རང་གྲོལ་ is rendered nominally as “self-originated self-liberation,” not adjectivally as a pair of dangling predicates. This preserves rang grol, “self-liberation,” as a nominal rang-family expression, introduces no pronoun subject or overt Tibetan coordinator, and keeps rang byung distinct from lhun grub, the text’s separate natural-perfection term.
• Dbu ma is rendered contextually: “Madhyamaka” when listed as a doctrinal name, and “Middle Way” where the following line explains the name through not falling into any extreme.
• The supplied Tibetan’s first fourfold refrain uses thig, provisionally rendered “standard”; the following refrain uses gzer, “nail.” They are kept distinct in the body. Its announcement nor ba med pas thig chen bzhi bstan pa explicitly marks the preceding “no error” statement as causal with -pas, so the body reads “Because there is no error, the four great standards are taught” rather than relocating that cause into an English attributive phrase. A non-controlling parallel Tibetan text reads theg, “vehicle,” in the first refrain; that witness is disclosed below but does not silently replace the supplied source.
• Zang thal is rendered “pellucid” within the selected terminology-inspired register; it is not expanded into the looser pair “transparent and unobstructed.”
• Dran rig is treated as a compact lexical expression and rendered “wakeful cognizance” in this nomenclature passage. The source does not present an attentional-practice instruction here, and the supplied Tibetan has no overt coordinator inside the expression, so it is neither narrowed to practice-specific “mindfulness” nor mechanically split into “mindfulness and cognizance.”
• Spros med is rendered “non-proliferation” under the selected register, rather than the looser “freedom from elaboration.”
• Bying rmugs ’thib rgod is rendered “laxity, drowsiness, mental fog, and agitation,” retaining four distinct meditative faults rather than collapsing the middle terms.
• Sa lam is rendered “grounds and paths,” the standard Buddhist pair; “stages and paths” is rejected here because sa denotes the grounds (bhūmis).
• The two direct-introduction ideophones remain distinct: stong sang nge is rendered “utterly empty,” while ye re ba is rendered “wide open.”
• In rang rig ’od gsal stong pa, R108 marks the unresolved boundary after rang rig with a relation-neutral middle dot rather than dash-apposition. Within ’od gsal stong pa, “empty luminosity” remains a provisional modifier reading; compact modification and asyndetic luminosity/emptiness both remain grammatically possible. No coordinator, genitive, identity, or apposition is claimed merely from adjacency.

A useful first reading

1. Read the opening and the section on non-recognition to see why the text treats all other teachings as means for recognizing this point.
2. Read the direct introduction slowly, keeping emptiness, clarity, and cognizance distinct but inseparable.
3. Then follow the repeated analysis of view, meditation, conduct, and fruition, in which the corresponding agent is sought and not found.

འཁོར་འདས་ཡོངས་ལ་ཁྱབ་པའི་སེམས་གཅིག་པུ༔ is a relative construction: sems gcig pu, “the single/sole mind,” is qualified by “that pervades all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.” This revision therefore reads “The single mind that pervades all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,” rather than shifting gcig pu into the adverbial claim “Mind alone pervades…”. “Single” preserves the source quantifier; lower-case “mind” and the surrounding non-reifying analysis prevent it from being presented as a metaphysical universal Mind.

མ་བཙལ་ཡེ་ནས་ལྷུན་གྱིས་གྲུབ་པ་འདི༔ gives the demonstrative “this” qualified by “unsought,” “from the very beginning,” and lhun gyis grub. This revision renders these predicatively—“This—unsought and naturally perfect from the very beginning—”—rather than turning them into the abstract noun phrase “this unsought natural perfection.”

མཐར་ཐུག་ཟད་སར་སྐྱོལ་བའི་གདམས་པ་ནི༔ introduces the instruction for reaching the ultimate zad sa, the place of exhaustion. This revision removes the duplicated and awkward “bringing the final point to the place of exhaustion” while preserving both ultimacy and destination.

མ་བཅོས་མཉམ་པར་བཞག་པ་བསམ་གཏན་ཡིན༔ explicitly contains bzhag pa, resting or placing, and writes the Tibetan term bsam gtan. R101 therefore reads “Resting in unaltered equipoise is concentration (bsam gtan),” preserving the verbal action and identifying the source-written term. Sanskrit dhyāna is a conventional correspondence but is not written in this supplied Tibetan unit, so R100’s unmarked Sanskrit parenthetical has been removed from the controlled body.

མ་མཐོང་རྒྱང་གི་གཏམ་རྒྱུད་བསྙད་པ་བཞིན༔ explicitly includes gtam rgyud, a tale or story. This revision therefore reads “like recounting a tale about a distant place one has never seen,” restoring that source noun without changing the simile’s scope.

སངས་རྒྱས་ལ་ནི་སྐད་ཅིག་ཉེར་མ་སོང་༔ uses skad cig as a temporal “instant/moment” with nyer ma song, “did not go/come near.” This revision therefore reads “One has not come near buddhahood even for an instant.” The superseded “not come even an instant closer” made the temporal noun function like a degree of comparative distance and thus blurred the source scope.

ཡེ་ནས་རང་ཉིད་ཡིན་ཀྱང་ངོ་མ་ཤེས༔ uses rang nyid yin as an identity construction, not an overt possessive, while ye nas explicitly contributes a from-the-beginning / primordial temporal value. R112’s “Although it has always been oneself” was idiomatic but flattened that source form into a generic universal-duration adverb and differed from this artifact’s other ye nas renderings (“from the beginning / from the very beginning”). R113 therefore reads “Although it has been oneself from the very beginning, it has not been recognized.” Lowercase reflexive “oneself” preserves the source identity construction without introducing a metaphysical capital-S Self; “from the very beginning” preserves ye nas without strengthening it into an independent eternity claim.

རྟག་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཅིར་ཡང་གྲུབ་པ་མེད༔ ཆད་པ་མ་ཡིན་སལ་ལེ་ཧྲིག་གེ་བ༔ གཅིག་ཏུ་མ་ཡིན་དུ་མ་རིག་ཅིང་གསལ༔ དུ་མ་མ་གྲུབ་དབྱེར་མེད་རོ་གཅིག་ངང་༔ gives four juxtaposed predicate sequences. None of these units contains an overt causal suffix such as -pas/-bas or phyir. This revision therefore uses semicolons instead of inserting four English “because” relations; the predicates and their number remain unchanged.

In the pith-instruction units སྒོམ་དུ་མེད་དེ་… ཡེངས་སུ་མེད་དེ་… and བསྒོམ་དུ་མེད་དེ་… ཡེངས་སུ་མེད་དེ་…, de connects the clauses but does not itself force the causal English “so” or “for.” This revision retains the clause sequence with semicolons, avoiding a stronger logical relation than the supplied Tibetan overtly marks.

གྲུབ་མཐའི་འདོད་པ་ contains an overt genitive: grub mtha’i qualifies ’dod pa. This revision therefore reads “philosophical assertions,” rather than splitting one genitive phrase into the coordinated pair “philosophical positions and assertions.”

དེ་བཞིན་སྣང་བ་སེམས་ལ་འཆར་བའི་ཕྱིར༔ རང་གི་སེམས་ལ་ཤར་ཞིང་སེམས་སུ་གྲོལ༔ uses generic singular snang ba and contains no thams cad or kun quantifier. R105 therefore reads “because appearance arises in mind, it arises in one’s own mind and is liberated in mind,” removing R104’s unsupported plural “appearances / they” while preserving the causal phyir and the two local relations.

རེ་ཞིག་ཕྱོགས་ཙམ་མཚོན་པའི་བརྡ་ཙམ་སྟེ༔ explicitly contains temporal re zhig, “for the time being,” and brda tsam, “merely a sign.” R105 therefore reads “for the time being, it is merely a sign illustrating one aspect,” rather than converting temporariness into R104’s adjective “provisional.”

གང་ཚེ་རང་གི་སེམས་རྒྱུད་འགྱུར་ཙམ་ན༔ ཕྱི་རུ་འགྱུར་བས་དེ་ཡི་མཐོང་སྣང་འབྱུང་༔ opens with gang tshe, “when,” while ’gyur tsam na marks the minimal degree/threshold of change. R105 therefore reads “When one’s own mindstream changes even slightly,” rather than R104’s stronger purely temporal “As soon as.” The following phyi ru ’gyur bas repeats the change predicate and carries explicit causal -bas into mthong snang ’byung, so “the change extends outward; as a result, corresponding perceptual appearances arise” is retained. “Corresponding” remains a target-language unpacking of source genitive de yi, not an added Tibetan adjective.

The appearance-list clusters at TUs 352, 354, and 355 contain adjacent nouns without an overt internal དང་. R102 removes the inherited English “and” from these three clusters. The body now uses a middle dot—“ignorance · afflictions · the five poisons,” “negative thoughts · the habitual tendencies of saṃsāra,” and “positive thoughts · the buddhafield of nirvāṇa”—solely to mark compact source adjacency without asserting coordination, genitive, identity, or apposition. Competing internal parses remain unresolved.

གཉིས་མེད་དོན་ལ་གཉིས་སུ་ཕྱེས་བས་གོལ༔ གཉིས་མེད་གཅིག་ཏུ་མ་གྱུར་སངས་མི་རྒྱ༔ first states that the nondual meaning is divided into two and then begins the next line again with gnyis med, “nondual.” The verb gyur is intransitive, “become”; the supplied Tibetan contains no causative equivalent of “bring.” R83 therefore introduced unsupported agency with “is not brought into one.” This revision reads “Unless the nondual meaning becomes one, buddhahood is not attained.” “Nondual meaning” is recovered only from the immediately preceding supplied Tibetan; no dhātu/vidyā nouns and no causative actor are added. Confidence is medium-high.

In the wave analogy, གཉིས་སུ་མེད་དེ་སེམས་ཀྱི་ངང་དུ་གྲོལ༔ first states nonduality and only then marks liberation with sems kyi ngang du, “in the state of mind.” R105 therefore reads “it is nondual / and is liberated in the state of mind,” making the source scope explicit and preventing the locative phrase from being read as the complement of nonduality.

The compact གསལ་རིག་ at TUs 014 and 107 is rendered “clear cognizance.” The previous “cognitive clarity” treated the compact expression naturally but over-weighted gsal, “clear/clarity,” and left the rig cognition component too implicit. “Clear cognizance” keeps both lexical values visible without pretending that the compact Tibetan contains an overt coordinator. The three-member གསལ་རིག་སྟོང་གསུམ་ at TU117 is different because gsum explicitly enumerates clarity, cognizance, and emptiness. The occurrence-level distinction is therefore preserved rather than forcing either a compound or a coordination across all three occurrences.

འདི་ལྟར་རང་གི་རིག་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་གྱིས༔ has the overt genitive rang gi modifying rig pa, followed by the pointing-out/introduction expression ngo sprod and imperative gyis. It does not contain a second reflexive or dative corresponding to R55’s added “to yourself.” This revision therefore reads simply, “In this way, introduce your own vidyā.”

The supplied meditation line སྒོམ་པས་མ་སྒོམས་སྒོམ་པའི་མཁན་པོ་ཚོལ༔ is grammatically unusual: sgom pas carries an agentive/instrumental ending, while ma sgoms is the negative imperative. It therefore cannot safely be represented as the direct object “meditation” in R55’s “Do not meditate on meditation.” This revision uses the cautious functional rendering “Instead of meditating, search for the meditator.” The supplied form is retained without silently emending it to bsgom bya, “object of meditation.”

This remains a working translation rather than a critical edition. The supplied Tibetan itself contains a few abnormal readings, disclosed below rather than silently corrected.

Textual variants and difficult readings

གཞན་ན་མེད་དེ་རང་རིག་འདི་ཉིད་དོ༔ concludes the direct introduction. This revision reads “It is nowhere else; it is precisely one’s own vidyā.” This retains the occurrence-specific personal/reflexive force of rang rig without the inverted translationese “this very vidyā of one’s own” or a metaphysical Self.

ལྟ་བས་བལྟ་རྒྱུ་ཅི་ཡང་མེད་པ་ལ༔ states that there is nothing whatsoever to view. This revision uses that natural verbal construction rather than making “the view” into an autonomous entity with something “for the view to look at.”

In བཟོ་མེད་ཐ་མལ་རང་གར་གནས་དུས་ཀྱི༔ ཤེས་པ་སལ་ལེ་ཧྲིག་གེ་འདི་ཀ་ལ༔, rang gar functions adverbially with the resting consciousness. This revision therefore reads “rests naturally, uncontrived and ordinary,” rather than making consciousness “rest ordinary” or appending the repetitive “just as it is.”

The repeated lines at TUs 348–355 and 357 use forms of སྣང་བའང་སེམས༔. This revision retains the refrain “Even the appearance of … is mind.” At TU349, བཅུད་ཀྱི་སེམས་ཅན་ names sentient beings as the animate contents paired with the preceding container-world; “the six classes of sentient beings—the animate contents—” preserves that contrast without the redundant “animate sentient beings.”

འདི་ཉིད་མ་རྟོགས་དགེ་སྡིག་གང་སྤྱད་ཀྱང་༔ concerns whatever virtuous or nonvirtuous acts are performed when this is not realized. This revision supplies “acts” as the natural English object of “performs”; it does not convert virtue and nonvirtue into autonomous agents or alter their ethical scope.

ཉན་ཐོས་རང་རྒྱལ་ཕྱོགས་ཙམ་བདག་མེད་པར༔ རྟོགས་པར་འདོད་ཀྱང་ places phyogs tsam, “only partially / from only one side,” with the attempted realization. This revision therefore reads “seek only a partial realization of selflessness,” keeping partiality on the realization rather than making “partial selflessness” sound like a distinct kind of selflessness.

In དངོས་པོའི་གནས་ལུགས་དོན་གྱི་ངོ་སྤྲོད་དེ༔, dngos po’i means “of things/entities”; it is not an adverb meaning “actual.” This revision therefore reads “an introduction to the meaning of how things are,” retaining both dngos po’i gnas lugs and don, “meaning,” without the inherited translationese “the way things abide.”

རང་བྱུང་རང་གསལ་ཉི་མའི་སྙིང་པོ་འདྲ༔ contains the compact rang byung rang gsal expression before the sun-heart simile. Batch95 Prompt T’s rang-family morphology gate requires rang gsal to remain self-clarity where the source presents the nominal expression, rather than turning it into a dangling adjective with a supplied English pronoun subject. R107 therefore reads “Self-originated self-clarity is like the heart of the sun.” This preserves rang byung as “self-originated” while keeping rang gsal morphologically distinct from an English predicate “is self-clear.”

དོན་ལ་སེམས་ཉིད་གཅིག་ལས་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན༔ keeps sems nyid, “the nature of mind,” as the source-local subject of the exclusive numerical expression gcig las yod ma yin. This revision therefore reads “in reality there is only a single nature of mind.” The inherited “nothing exists apart from the single nature of mind” broadened the clause into a universal ontological assertion whose subject is not supplied by this Tibetan unit.

གཅིག་པུ་དེ་ཡང་གཞི་མེད་རྩ་བྲལ་ཡིན༔ refers back to the single nature of mind just mentioned. This revision therefore reads “Even this single nature of mind is baseless and rootless,” replacing the abstract and potentially reifying “that singleness.”

The colophon’s ལས་འཕྲོད་ཅན་ denotes those possessing a karmic connection or affinity. This revision reads “those who have a karmic affinity”; “whose karmic connection has ripened” added a ripening predicate not stated in the supplied Tibetan.

The opening proclamation uses བསྟན་, “is taught / teaches,” without an overt first-person pronoun. This revision therefore reads “the Introduction to Vidyā … is taught,” rather than introducing an unsupported English “I shall teach.”

In the nomenclature list the supplied Tibetan itself writes བདག་ (bdag) and ཀུན་གཞི་ (kun gzhi), not the Sanskrit forms ātman and ālaya. R101 therefore keeps the source-written Tibetan forms in the body parentheticals and removes those two unmarked conventional Sanskrit back-translations. This does not deny their conventional Indic correspondences; it separates source content from editorial correspondence under the Batch95 source-anchor gate.

སྐྱེ་མ་མྱོང་ཞིང་འཆི་རྒྱུ་མེད་པ་མཚར༔ combines “has not experienced birth” with the verbal construction ’chi rgyu med. Here rgyu med follows the verb “die” and functions as a future/possibility construction rather than the noun “cause.” R101 therefore reads “It has never experienced birth and will not die—how wonderful!” instead of R100’s “has no cause for death.”

In the paired predicates རྟག་པ་མ་ཡིན་ … ཆད་པ་མ་ཡིན་, the source excludes permanence and annihilation. The chad pa clause itself contains no stong pa or other word meaning “void.” R101 therefore reads “It is not annihilated; it is lucid and vivid,” preserving the paired predicate while removing R100’s added “nihilistic void.” The later explicit blank-emptiness warning remains separate.

The later certainty-section warning སྟོང་པ་ཕྱང་ཆད་ཆད་ལྟ་མ་ཡིན་པར༔ is kept distinct from that explicit chad pa ma yin construction. Here phyang chad marks the blank/inert-emptiness warning; R95’s added “nihilistic” over-specified the phrase by importing the stronger doctrinal label already expressed elsewhere. The body therefore reads “This is not the view of a blank emptiness.” This does not deny the doctrinal danger of such a blank-emptiness view; it simply avoids making the supplied Tibetan say more than it explicitly says at this occurrence.

The supplied text writes ཅེར་མཐོང་ in the title and much of the body, but the full colophon writes གཅེར་མཐོང་. The Bodleian catalogue also records the title with གཅེར་. The English title therefore uses “Naked Seeing,” while this spelling difference is disclosed rather than silently normalized in the Tibetan.

The supplied line ཁམས་གསུམ་རྒྱུད་དྲུག་འཁྱམས་ཤིང་སྡུག་བསྔལ་སྤྱོད༔ has rgyud drug, literally “six continuums/streams,” rather than the standard Buddhist expression ’gro drug, “six destinies/classes.” A source-language parallel preserves rgyud drug and explicitly comments on the unusual wording. The body therefore uses the visibly bracketed contextual supplement “six [destinies]” rather than silently presenting “destinies” as the supplied Tibetan’s literal reading.

In the first fourfold refrain, the supplied source announces ནོར་བ་མེད་པས་ཐིག་ཆེན་བཞི་བསྟན་པ༔. The ending -pas explicitly carries causal force, so the announcement is rendered “Because there is no error, the four great standards are taught.” The source then repeatedly has ཐིག་ཆེན་ and ཐིག་, provisionally rendered “great standard” and “standard.” A non-controlling parallel Tibetan text instead reads theg chen and theg, “great vehicle” and “vehicle.” Because that edition is not the supplied controlling witness, this revision records the divergence but retains the supplied thig reading in the body.

The repeated line explaining the four changeless nails reads དུས་གསུམ་བསྟན་པའི་ཕྱིར་. The supplied text has བསྟན་ (bstan, “show/teach”), not བརྟན་ (brtan, “stable”). This revision therefore follows the supplied form directly: “Because it shows the three times, it is called a nail.” The wording remains unusual, but the body does not silently import a more familiar stability reading from secondary translations.

In the elephant-footprint passage the supplied Tibetan has བྲན་, which is anomalous in context. The body therefore marks the contextual supplement “[search]” rather than pretending that the supplied form literally means “search.”

In the crowd-and-spectacle simile, the supplied unit ལྟད་མོ་བྱས་པས་རང་ཉིད་སྟོར་ནས་སུ༔ explicitly marks a causal/instrumental relation with -pas; the body therefore reads “loses himself through watching a spectacle,” rather than weakening that relation to merely temporal “while watching.” The unit still ends with an isolated སུ་ whose syntactic role is unclear in the supplied punctuation, so no separate English value is silently assigned to that unresolved final syllable. In the following line, རང་གིས་གཞན་ཚོལ་ uses agentive rang gis; the reflexive logic remains searching for another when the one lost is oneself. A verified direct witness or source-language commentary is still needed to classify the isolated final syllable.

དངོས་པོ་གཤིས་ཀྱི་གནས་ལུགས་ denotes the natural state or nature of how things are. This revision therefore reads “the way things are by nature,” replacing the less exact “true condition of things,” which added a truth predicate not expressed by gshis kyi gnas lugs.

རང་སེམས་སངས་རྒྱས་མ་རྟོགས་མྱང་འདས་བསྒྲིབས༔ follows a preceding causal unit but does not itself carry the causal -bas found in མ་མཐོང་བས༔. This revision therefore removes the inherited second English “Because” and reads, “One does not realize one’s own mind as buddha; nirvāṇa is obscured.” The semicolon preserves the close juxtaposition without claiming a causal marker that the controlling unit does not overtly contain.

The supplied Tibetan gives རྫིང་, “pond,” three times in the crow simile. The repaired English now follows that controlling reading. A known parallel wording has “ship,” which makes the simile more familiar, but it is not allowed to overwrite the supplied Tibetan.

The names list contains the supplied form སེམས་ད་སེམས་ཉིད་. The connector ད་ is irregular in this position and does not support R19’s earlier “or.” This revision therefore uses the visibly bracketed contextual supplement “[and]”—“mind [and] nature of mind”—without silently presenting the supplied form as regular དང་. A verified direct witness is still needed to determine whether the supplied form is defective or preserves another reading.

ཡོད་ནི་གཅིག་ཀྱང་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཡིན་ཏེ༔ uses the existence family yod pa, not the establishment family grub pa. This revision therefore reads “as for whether it exists, it does not exist as even a single thing,” preserving the source’s existential force while reserving “established” for passages that explicitly use grub pa.

The final member of the fivefold refrain reads སེམས་ལས་མ་གཏོགས་གཞན་ན་ཆོས་མེད་པས༔ འབྲས་བུ་བསྒྲུབ་རྒྱུ་གཞན་ན་ཆོས་མེད་དོ༔. The second line repeats chos, “phenomenon/dharma,” as the object to be accomplished as fruition. This revision therefore reads “there is no other phenomenon to accomplish as fruition,” rather than changing the repeated object into “another fruition.”

རིག་པ་ཡེ་ཤེས་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པར་ངེས༔ contains the compact sequence rig pa ye shes with neither overt coordinating dang nor an overt genitive particle. Batch95 Prompt T v1.17 therefore classifies rig pa ye shes as an unresolved compact cluster and specifically prohibits automatic “and,” identity, dash-apposition, or genitive. R83’s “vidyā–pristine consciousness” still supplied a dash relation that the controlling Tibetan does not settle. R102 renders the two protected components as vidyā · pristine consciousness; the middle dot marks only their compact adjacency and asserts no coordinator, genitive, identity, or apposition. Component meanings are high confidence; the internal relation remains unresolved.

In the sky analogy, སེམས་ཉིད་རིག་བཅས་སྟོང་པ་ཅིར་ཡང་གསལ༔ ནམ་མཁའ་རིག་མེད་སྟོང་པ་བེམ་སྟོང་སྟེ༔ sets up an explicit rig bcas / rig med contrast, but here rig functions predicatively/qualitatively rather than appearing as the nominal technical term rig pa. The second line immediately characterizes the sky as bem stong, an insentient void, so the local contrast is cognizance versus insentience. This revision therefore reads “the nature of mind is cognizant …; the sky lacks cognizance,” rather than mechanically forcing the selected rig pa → vidyā register onto these predicate forms. The repeated Tibetan root remains semantically visible through the matched cognizance wording without turning a contextual register preference into a substitution table.

དྲན་རིག་རྒྱུན་ཆད་མེད་པའི་རིག་པ་ཟེར༔ contains the compact expression dran rig followed by the overt genitive pa’i governing rig pa. In this nomenclature passage, where the line names vidyā rather than instructing a mindfulness practice, this revision reads “vidyā of uninterrupted wakeful cognizance.” The English “of” preserves the source’s overt genitive relation, while compact dran rig remains unsplit; neither a practice-specific “mindful” sense nor the earlier coordination “mindfulness and cognizance” is imposed mechanically.

སྟོང་པ་རིག་པའི་སྙིང་པོ་ཅན་ཡིན་པས༔ contains the overt genitive rig pa’i inside the compound rig pa’i snying po, followed by can, “endowed with” or “possessing.” This revision therefore reads “emptiness is endowed with the essence of vidyā.” The R28 wording “emptiness has vidyā as its essence” collapsed “the essence of vidyā” into an identity between vidyā and essence and is superseded.

In སྣང་བ་ཐམས་ཅད་སེམས་ཀྱི་རིག་པས་ན༔, སེམས་ཀྱི་ is explicitly genitive and qualifies nominal རིག་པ་; the causal -པས་ན་ ending applies to that nominal expression. The preceding passive rendering “Since all appearances are cognized by mind” converted the genitive sems kyi into an agentive relation more like sems kyis. This revision therefore restores “Since all appearances are mind’s vidyā.” The compact Tibetan does not spell out an English copula, so the relation remains a contextual nominal unpacking rather than a claim about an independently existing Mind or knower. This source-internal distinction is sharpened by the later ཅིར་སྣང་ཐམས་ཅད་སེམས་ཀྱིས་སྣང་བ་ཡིན༔, which actually uses instrumental སེམས་ཀྱིས་. The following སྣང་བ་མ་འཁྲུལ་འཛིན་པས་འཁྲུལ་བ་ཡིན༔ likewise preserves its own causal/instrumental relation: appearances themselves are not mistaken; delusion arises through grasping. A Shechen edition of the same work preserves the supplied སེམས་ཀྱི་རིག་པས་ན་ wording, while a separate non-controlling romanized parallel reads snang ba thams cad sems su rig pa ni; neither secondary witness is allowed to override the supplied Tibetan.

In the cloud analogy, རང་བྱུང་རང་གྲོལ་བར་སྣང་སྤྲིན་དང་འདྲ༔ follows the statement that all marks are liberated in their own place. Here bar snang is the lexical expression “sky/atmosphere,” so it should not be mis-segmented as an adverbial -bar attached to rang grol. Batch95 Prompt T’s rang-family morphology gate also cautions against converting rang grol, “self-liberation,” into a dangling participial predicate merely to supply the preceding “marks” as an English subject. R107 therefore reads “Self-originated self-liberation is like clouds in the sky.” This preserves the nominal rang byung rang grol morphology without inventing an overt Tibetan coordinator or a pronoun subject.

རྣམ་རྟོག་འགྱུ་དྲན་ངོས་བཟུང་མེད་པར་ངེས༔ uses the lexical expression ’gyu dran, attested in Tibetan lexicography with the sense “discursive,” followed by a line that compares the insubstantial movement to a breeze. This revision therefore reads “the movement of discursive thought cannot be identified.” The superseded “movements and recollections” mechanically split ’gyu dran and introduced a recollection category not supported here.

In རྣམ་རྟོག་མི་མངའ་ཅིར་ཡང་སལ་ལེར་མཁྱེན༔, ci r yang supplies the universal scope “whatever there is”; it is not an overt concessive marker linking the absence of conceptual thought to the knowing predicate. R102 therefore reads “There is no conceptual thought; whatever there is is lucidly known.” The semicolon preserves the source juxtaposition and ci r yang scope while avoiding an English pronoun that could make the preceding luminosity/vidyā phrase into a hidden knowing entity.

སངས་རྒྱས་ལམ་གྱིས་མི་བསྒྲུབ་མངོན་གྱུར་པས༔ རྡོ་རྗེ་སེམས་དཔའ་དུས་འདིར་མཐོང་བ་ཡིན༔ places causal -pas on mngon gyur, carrying the manifestation clause into the Vajrasattva statement. This revision therefore removes the inherited adversative “but” and reads “Buddhahood is not accomplished by a path; since it becomes manifest, Vajrasattva is seen at this time.” The supplied source says dus ’dir, “at this time”; the stronger “at this very moment” is not retained.

The final member of the substance/emptiness analysis reads སོ་སོར་མ་མཐོང་གསལ་སྟོང་དབྱེར་མེད་ངང་༔. This revision makes the pair explicit: “Clarity and emptiness are not seen separately; they are inseparable.” This removes the unclear singular “it” while preserving both the negative perception clause and the inseparability predicate.

མཐོ་རིས་ངན་སོང་ is the parallel Buddhist pair “higher realms / lower realms.” This revision therefore reads “one does not transcend saṃsāra in either the higher or lower realms,” replacing the asymmetrical “higher states or the lower realms.”

The compact རང་རིག་ sequences at TUs 225, 237, 249, and 262 contain adjacent technical expressions without overt English-style relation markers: རང་རིག་སེམས་ཉིད་རང་བྱུང་ཡེ་ཤེས་ལ༔, རང་རིག་ཐ་མལ་ཤེས་པ་ཟང་ཐལ་ལ༔, རང་རིག་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཐིག་ལེ་ཉག་གཅིག་ལ༔, and རང་རིག་སེམས་ཉིད་སྐུ་གསུམ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ༔. R102 still used dash-apposition and appositional commas inside these unresolved clusters even while its note admitted that Tibetan does not mark those relations. Batch95 Prompt T expressly prohibits inserting English “and,” “of,” identity, or dash-apposition merely from adjacency. R103 therefore uses relation-neutral middle dots only at unresolved internal boundaries: “one’s own vidyā · nature of mind · self-originated pristine consciousness,” “one’s own vidyā · pellucid ordinary consciousness,” “one’s own vidyā · pristine consciousness · the sole unique tilaka,” and “one’s own vidyā · nature of mind · naturally perfect three kāyas.” Established lexical compounds such as rang byung ye shes, tha mal shes pa, thig le nyag gcig, and sku gsum lhun grub remain internally translated as units; the middle dots assert no coordinator, genitive, identity, or apposition. The terminal la remains source-locally topical rather than spatial.

ཡེ་མེད་སྟོང་པ་ཕྱལ་བར་མ་སོང་བར༔ explicitly includes ye med, “nonexistent from the very beginning / primordially nonexistent,” before stong pa phyal ba, the flat/blank-emptiness warning. R102’s “flat emptiness of sheer nonexistence” preserved the warning but weakened the source’s ye temporal/primordial force. R103 therefore reads “flat emptiness of primordial nonexistence.” This does not add a separate annihilation doctrine or convert the phrase into a metaphysical assertion; it restores an overt source modifier inside the warning against lapsing into that extreme.

རང་རིག་འོད་གསལ་སྟོང་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ༔ places rang rig beside the compact ’od gsal stong pa sequence without an overt coordinator, genitive, identity marker, or appositional particle. R107 still rendered that boundary with dash-apposition (“one’s own vidyā—empty luminosity—is the dharmakāya”), even though the relation remained explicitly unresolved. R108 therefore reads “one’s own vidyā · empty luminosity is the dharmakāya”; the middle dot marks only the unresolved boundary and asserts no English-style relation. Within ’od gsal stong pa, “empty luminosity” remains a provisional modifier reading rather than a claim that the absence of dang proves modification; juxtaposition or asyndetic coordination remains grammatically possible.

སྣང་སྟོང་རང་གྲོལ་གསལ་སྟོང་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ༔ contains the compact paired expressions snang stong and gsal stong. This revision renders them as the hyphenated compounds “appearance-emptiness” and “clarity-emptiness,” rather than as two plural English subjects. This preserves the compact source grouping without claiming an overt coordinator.

རང་རིག་སྐུ་གསུམ་རྩོལ་མེད་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ༔ contains adjacent rang rig and sku gsum without an overt coordinator, genitive, copula, or apposition marker, and the compact phrase ends in la. R102 therefore withdraws the inherited genitive “the three kāyas of one’s own vidyā” and reads “As for one’s own vidyā · the three kāyas, there is natural perfection without effort.” The middle dot marks the unresolved internal boundary only; the terminal la is handled as a source-local topic/reference marker rather than a spatial container.

གནས་སུ་མ་བཏུབ་ reports inability to remain or stay; this revision therefore uses “one could not remain” within the passage’s impersonal reported-speech frame, rather than adding an unsupported first-person speaker, importing a second-person subject, or weakening the sense to “settle.”

རང་བྱུང་ཡེ་ཤེས་མངོན་སུམ་གསལ་བ་རུ༔ གཏན་ལ་ཕེབ་ན་དེ་ཀ་ཆོས་ཉིད་དོ༔ places mngon sum gsal ba ru inside the content ascertained by gtan la phebs. Same-text parallels independently preserve mngon sum as direct presence or directness—e.g. rig pa mngon sum as directly present vidyā, and mngon sum gsal as directly present and clear. R109 compressed mngon sum into the adverbial force of “manifestly clear,” leaving only a single English clarity quality. R110 therefore reads “When it is ascertained that self-originated pristine consciousness is directly present and clear,” preserving the direct-presence and clarity values together within the ascertainment complement; the English “and” coordinates two predicative values here and does not claim that Tibetan contains an overt coordinator or that the two are separate sequential events.

དབང་པོ་དག་ལ་རྣོ་རྟུལ་མེད་པར་རྟོགས༔ states an absence of distinction between sharp and dull faculties in realization. This revision does not expand this into a universal assurance that everyone can realize it regardless of capacity.

ཡིན་པར་བྱས་ཀྱང་དེ་ཉིད་བྱེད་མི་ཤེས༔ contains a concessive making construction followed by epistemic non-knowledge. The supplied Tibetan does not write a separate lexical verb of trying or intending, but an English passive such as “Even if it is made to be so” misleadingly suggests that the making has actually been completed before saying that one does not know how to do it. This revision therefore uses the counterfactual “Even if one were to make it so, one would not know how to do so.” The hypothetical force keeps byas kyang and byed mi shes coherent without adding a hidden metaphysical agent, a separate verb of volition, or an objective-impossibility claim.

In བདུད་དང་འདྲེ་ཡི་བར་ཆད་སྣང་བའང་སེམས༔, the genitive ’dre yi belongs with bar chad, so “the appearance of obstacles from māras and spirits” is retained. In the following ལྷ་དང་དངོས་གྲུབ་ལེགས་པར་སྣང་བའང་སེམས༔, however, legs par is adverbial and modifies snang ba. Batch95 therefore removes the inherited noun phrase “the favorable appearance of deities and siddhis” and reads “Even when deities and siddhis appear auspiciously, that too is mind,” preserving the source relation without manufacturing an English adjective–noun grouping.

བཤད་མི་ཤེས་ཀྱང་མངོན་སུམ་གཏན་ལ་ཕེབ༔ contrasts not knowing how to explain with direct ascertainment. Since gtan la phebs is an ascertainment predicate, this revision reads “Although one does not know how to explain it, one ascertains it directly,” rather than converting the clause into the looser experiential phrase “reaches certainty through direct experience.”

Near the end, the supplied text reads རང་སེམས་སྟོངས་གསལ་ཡེ་ཤེས་, with སྟོངས་གསལ་ rather than the more regular སྟོང་གསལ་. The body retains the contextually clear sense “empty-and-clear pristine consciousness,” while this revision records the supplied spelling rather than silently presenting it as normalized Tibetan. A verified direct witness is still needed to classify the form more securely.

One line in the repeated “how wonderful” passage ends with the supplied form འཚར་, while the surrounding refrain repeatedly uses མཚར་. This revision retains the contextually continuous refrain “how wonderful!” but records the isolated spelling rather than silently normalizing the Tibetan. In the same line, མཐོང་མཁན་མེད་པ་ directly states that there is no seer; this revision therefore removes the inherited search predicate “is found.”

རང་ལ་ཡོད་ཀྱང་གཞན་དུ་བཙལ་བ་མཚར༔ uses locative la with existential yod: it says that this is present in oneself and yet sought elsewhere. This revision therefore replaces the possessive “it is one’s own” with “it is present in oneself.” This keeps the parallel with the immediately preceding ཀུན་ལ་ཡོད་ཀྱང་, now rendered “although present in all”; broad kun la does not itself restrict the range to human persons. It also avoids adding an ownership relation not overtly expressed by the controlling Tibetan.

འདི་བཞག་འབྲས་བུ་གཞན་ཞིག་རེ་བ་མཚར༔ states that this is left aside and another fruition is hoped for, followed by the wonder refrain. It contains no overt adversative or concessive particle corresponding to English “Yet.” This revision therefore removes “Yet” and lets the source’s own sequence carry the rhetorical contrast.

In རྟོག་པ་འཕྲོ་བའི་འཕྲོ་མཁན་མི་གདའ་ན༔, མི་གདའ་ is an existential negation—“there is not”—rather than a verb of searching or finding. This revision therefore reads “if there is no one who sends thoughts streaming outward,” reserving “searched for and not found” for later passages that explicitly use བཙལ་བས་མ་རྙེད་. The source-explicit projector is retained only in order to negate its existence; no inner observer or metaphysical agent is introduced.

མངོན་གྱུར་སྐུ་གསུམ་རང་གསལ་རྟོགས་པ་ཉིད༔ ཡེ་སངས་རྒྱས་པའི་འབྲས་བུ་དེ་ཉིད་དོ༔ forms one compact realization-and-fruition sequence. This revision retains the medium-confidence internal parse “the three kāyas become manifest; that is self-clear realization itself,” but attaches the following explicit fruition statement appositionally as “the very fruition of primordial buddhahood,” instead of splitting the source into two repetitive independent English claims. The semicolon and demonstrative remain target-language syntax; no stronger “manifest as” relation is asserted. A parallel romanized transcription reads mngon gyur sku gsum rang la rtogs pa nyid, with rang la rather than the supplied rang gsal; see the parallel witness. Because that witness is not the supplied controlling source and its textual relationship has not been established, this revision records the divergence but does not substitute it.

འགྲོ་ལ་སེམས་རྒྱུད་གཉིས་སུ་མ་གྲུབ་པས༔ སེམས་ཉིད་མ་བཅོས་རང་སར་བཞག་པས་གྲོལ༔ begins with relational ’gro la and singular sems rgyud, but the first clause itself ends in causal ma grub pas; the following clause then adds bzhag pas before the result grol. R92 preserved the second relation as “by leaving” but reduced the first explicit causal relation to a semicolon. This revision therefore reads “For beings, because the mindstream is not established as two, one is liberated by leaving the nature of mind unaltered in its own place.” This preserves both source-marked relations while keeping the supplied dative/relational construction visible without adding the stronger universal “no being’s” or implying one collectively shared mindstream. A scholarly published transcription of this same passage reads ’grol la instead of the supplied ’gro la; because that is a secondary witness and its exact textual relationship to the supplied source is not established here, the variant is disclosed but does not override the controlling reading.

The following sequence འཁྲུལ་བ་དེ་ཉིད་སེམས་སུ་མ་རིག་ན༔ ཆོས་ཉིད་དོན་དེ་ནམ་ཡང་མི་རྟོགས་པས༔ རང་བྱུང་རང་ཤར་རང་གསལ་རང་ལ་བལྟ༔ begins with conditional na, and the following clause ends in causal -pas before the imperative lta. The final phrase is bare rang la blta; unlike the many nearby rang gi sems la ltos instructions, it contains no sems “mind.” This revision therefore reads: “If this very delusion is not known as mind, the meaning of dharmatā will never be realized; therefore, self-originated, self-arisen, and self-clear—look at yourself.” The causal relation and the three distinct rang-family forms are preserved without inserting an unwritten object.

In དངོས་པོ་མཚན་མའི་ཁ་དོག་སྣང་བའང་སེམས༔, མཚན་མའི་ is genitival and belongs to the marks/signs family also negated in the following མཚན་མ་མེད་, “signlessness.” This revision therefore reads “the appearance of the colors of phenomena with marks,” retaining the genitive and the technical distinction between marks and defining characteristics. The R41 wording “characteristics” is superseded.

The preceding unit དངོས་པོར་མ་མཐོང་ཅིར་ཡང་གྲུབ་པ་མེད༔ juxtaposes two clauses without an overt causal particle. This revision therefore uses a semicolon—“It is not seen as a substance; nothing whatsoever is established”—rather than the superseded causal “for.” The following སྟོང་པར་མ་མཐོང་ says simply “not seen as emptiness”; it contains no restrictive equivalent of English “mere,” so that inherited softening is removed. In the same unit, རིག་ཅིང་གསལ་བའི་མདངས་ places the coordinated predicates rig cing gsal ba inside the overt genitive ba’i governing mdangs, “radiance.” This revision reads “there is the radiance of cognizance and clarity,” preserving that source-marked genitive while avoiding the source-unexpressed bearer/possessor introduced by “it has” and without making radiance itself a cognizer.

The supplied controlling Tibetan reads དེ་ཕྱིར་བྱས་ཆོས་བྱ་བྲེལ་ཀུན་བསྐྱུར་ལ༔, supporting the present “fabricated dharmas and busy activities.” A verified Shechen Publications witness of the same text instead reads བྱས་ཆོས་བྱེ་བྲག་ཀུན་བསྐྱུར. This revision records this as an alternate-witness variant but does not silently emend the supplied controlling source.

The analogy reads ཏིལ་དང་འོ་མ་མར་གྱི་རྒྱུ་ཡིན་ཀྱང་༔ མ་བསྲུབས་མ་བཙིར་མར་ཁུ་མི་འབྱུང་ལྟར༔. The compact mar / mar khu wording does not overtly state two separate English product nouns. This revision therefore makes the contextual distributive reading explicit—“sesame and milk are sources of oil and butter respectively”—and renders the two source predicates concretely as “unless the milk is churned and the sesame is pressed, neither emerges.” This remains a disclosed contextual reading rather than a claim that “oil and butter” are separately coordinated in the Tibetan.

The next line reads ཉམས་སུ་མ་བླངས་སེམས་ཅན་སངས་མི་རྒྱ༔. Here sems can is the explicit subject and sangs mi rgya is the negated verbal “attain buddhahood / become a buddha” construction. The same sangs mi rgya construction earlier in the supplied text is already rendered with explicit buddhahood-result language (“buddhahood is not attained”). R97’s “sentient beings do not awaken” was therefore unnecessarily loose at this occurrence. This revision reads “sentient beings do not attain buddhahood,” preserving the explicit subject while retaining the source’s specific Buddhahood result rather than generalizing it to awakening.

རྒྱལ་བའི་དགོངས་པ་མངོན་སུམ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་འདི༔ སྦ་འཕྲི་མེད་པར་མཛུབ་ཚུགས་འདི་ཀ་ཡིན༔ repeats the demonstrative “this” but does not require English to repeat “direct” twice. R101 reads “is precisely this: pointing it out without concealment or omission.” “Precisely” carries the emphatic ’di ka without the possible merely/only implication of R100’s “simply,” while preserving immediacy and pointing-out.

རྒྱལ་བའི་དགོངས་པ་ and སངས་རྒྱས་དགོངས་པ་ are rendered here as “the Victors’ intent” and “the Buddha’s intent.” Batch95 treats Malcolm Smith’s “transcendent state” for dgongs pa as a sense-specific register witness for uninterrupted contemplation, not a universal substitution. Neither of these two local constructions explicitly denotes uninterrupted contemplation; the first is what is directly introduced, and the second is said to be beyond intellect. “Intent” therefore preserves the local genitive constructions without importing the narrower contemplative-state sense.

བུ་རམ་ denotes molasses, treacle, or unrefined cane sugar in Tibetan lexicography. This revision retains the concise rendering “molasses,” and the source’s reflexive rang gi kha ru, “in one’s own mouth,” is expressed naturally as tasting it oneself. The following unit འདི་ཉིད་མ་རྟོགས་པཎྜི་ཏ་ཡང་འཁྲུལ༔ is now given its own clear conditional scope—“even a paṇḍita who does not realize this is deluded”—rather than being left in a comma-spliced sentence that could attach “without realizing this” to the taste analogy.

In the direct introduction, སྟོང་སང་ངེ་ and ཡེ་རེ་བ་ are neighboring but distinct experiential expressions. The body now uses “utterly empty” for the former and “wide open” for the latter, rather than the awkward “openly empty” or collapsing both into one phrase.

འདི་ཉིད་མངོན་སུམ་མཛུབ་ཚུགས་ངོ་སྤྲད་ན༔ expresses a direct pointing-out introduction. This revision reads “If this is introduced through direct pointing-out,” removing the redundant English “introduced directly by pointing it out” without changing the source action or its immediacy.

བལྟས་པས་མཐོང་རྒྱུ་མེད་པའི་སལ་ལེ་བ༔ presents absence of anything seen together with the quality sal le ba. This revision therefore reads “nothing is seen, yet there is lucid clarity,” preserving the qualitative contrast without introducing an unnecessary entity-like “it” as bearer of clarity.

In the elephant-footprint passage, དོན་ལ་ད་ལྟའི་ཤེས་རིག་འདི་ཀ་ལས༔ འདི་མིན་གཞན་ལས་ལྷག་པ་སུས་འདོད་པ༔ says that whoever posits something other than present knowing consciousness as superior resembles someone who has found an elephant but still seeks its tracks. It does not independently assert that nothing else exists. This revision removes the unsupported existential sentence while retaining the comparative scope and the following impossibility of finding anything superior.

རིག་པ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་ཚིག་གསུམ་པོ་ contains the quantified plural tshig gsum po, “the three words/statements.” It does not denote one lexical phrase made up of exactly three words. This revision therefore reads “the three statements introducing vidyā,” preserving the plural number and compact relation without converting the line into an imperative quotation.

The twelve doubt-cutting questions repeat the impersonal source frame བྱ་བ་ཅི་ལ་ཟེར་ without an overt second-person subject. The previous revision imported the earlier address to the fortunate children into every occurrence as “what do you mean by saying that …?” This revision instead uses the source-neutral English frame “what does it mean to say that …?” while preserving each reported clause’s own passive, instrumental, reflexive, or explicitly agentive relation. Generic “one” is used only where English requires a subject for a source-local inability statement; no enduring knower or speaker is introduced.

In བྱར་མེད་ཅོག་གེ་བཞག་པས་ཆོག་པ་ལ༔, byar med preserves the explicit “nothing to do” sense, while cog ge bzhag is read here in the “leave/rest as it is” sense. R96’s “openly at ease” supplied an additional manner gloss that the source does not need. This revision therefore reads “Since it is enough to leave it just as it is, with nothing to do,” preserving both parts of the Tibetan without turning the line into a separate relaxation instruction.

Four clauses still require separate source-local handling: དེ་ལ་མ་ནུས་, བསྒྲུབས་པས་མ་གྲུབ་, རྩོལ་བས་མ་ནུས་, and གཉེན་པོས་མ་ཐུབ་. This revision does not turn any of them into a universal doctrinal claim. The practice clause preserves ma grub as “was not accomplished,” while the adjacent effort clause preserves the distinct inability ma nus as “could not be brought about through effort,” rather than flattening both into “accomplished.” The antidote clause retains “an antidote could not overcome them.” The case-marked gnyen pos is overt in the supplied Tibetan and can carry agentive as well as instrumental force; with ma thub, the active English preserves the explicit participant and failure-to-overcome predicate without inventing a metaphysical or hidden agent. “Them” transparently recovers the thoughts from the preceding line. A passive English rendering remains grammatically conceivable, but this review found no source-based reason strong enough to suppress the overt agentive possibility. The uniform reported-speech frame preserves those relations without introducing a first-person speaker.

The pith-instruction line has གྱེར་གྱིས་ལྟོས་, an irregular form in this context. Because the supplied text does not clearly read གཅེར་གྱིས་, the body now says “look directly” rather than silently emending it to “look nakedly.” A verified direct witness is still needed to settle the reading.

དམིགས་གཏད་མཚན་མའི་སྒོམ་བཟླས་བྱེད་པས་འཁྲུལ༔ uses instrumental byed pas: the error occurs through performing meditation and recitation with objects of focus and marks. This revision therefore reads “by meditating and reciting … one goes astray,” rather than personifying the practices as independent causes that “lead to error.”

R111 also removes an inherited target-language adversative from two consecutive units. In རང་རིག་སྐུ་གསུམ་རྩོལ་མེད་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ༔ འདི་མིན་ཐག་རིང་གཞན་དུ་བགྲོད་ཐབས་ཀྱིས༔, the first clause is already handled with relation-neutral topic/reference syntax and the following clause contains no overt adversative or concessive marker corresponding to English “Yet”; the deluded-seeking clause therefore follows directly. Likewise, སངས་རྒྱས་དགོངས་པ་བློ་ལས་འདས་པ་ལ༔ དམིགས་གཏད་མཚན་མའི་སྒོམ་བཟླས་བྱེད་པས་འཁྲུལ༔ supplies no “Yet”; byed pas itself gives the local causal/instrumental relation. Removing both adversatives avoids adding a contrast relation not written in the controlling Tibetan.

The direct-introduction sequence འདས་པའི་རྟོག་པ་རྗེས་མེད་ཡལ་བའི་རྟིང་༔ མ་འོངས་རྟོག་པ་མ་སྐྱེས་སོ་མ་ལ༔ places the passage after the past thought has vanished and before the future thought has arisen, “in that freshness.” The following ད་ལྟར་བཟོ་མེད་རང་ལུགས་གནས་པའི་དུས༔ ཐ་མལ་དུས་ཀྱི་ཤེས་པ་འདི་ཀ་ལ༔ རང་གི་རང་ལ་ཅེར་གྱིས་བལྟས་པའི་ཚེ༔ is a temporal pointing-out instruction with emphatic/reflexive rang-language. The supplied Tibetan does not require “consciousness” itself to become a separate observer. R112 rendered cer gyis bltas as “look intently” because this occurrence writes cer rather than gcer; that exclusion was too strong. Tibetan lexical evidence for cer gyis itself includes direct, naked, and piercing force, while cer gyis bltas is glossed as looking directly or sharply observing. The supplied text also writes cer mthong in the opening title and gcer mthong in the closing title, so this artifact does not impose a semantic opposition on that spelling alternation alone. R117 therefore reads “when this ordinary consciousness of the present rests naturally and uncontrived / and you look directly at it yourself,” retaining the established second-person naturalization and reflexive emphasis, preserving the source’s direct-gaze force, and avoiding a hidden consciousness-agent. “Directly” is chosen here over the equally attested “nakedly” because it is idiomatic English and does not require the spelling variation itself to settle the title-level nakedness nuance.

In བཏག་བྱ་མ་འགགས་མིང་འདོགས་ཅིར་བཏགས་ཀྱང་༔, final kyang is concessive, while btag bya is what may be designated rather than an autonomous subject called “designations.” The source also explicitly has ma ’gags, “unobstructed.” This revision therefore reads “Although there is no obstruction to designation, no matter what name may be applied,” making that predicate visible in the body while preserving the unrestricted naming scope and the concessive kyang.

རང་གིས་གཞན་ཚོལ་རང་ཉིད་ཅི་ཕྱིར་རྙེད༔ uses generic reflexive rang gis / rang nyid, not an explicit second-person pronoun. This revision therefore reads “even if one searches for mind outside, how could one find oneself by searching for another?” rather than shifting without source support to “you/yourself.”

རང་རིག་མངོན་སུམ་བཅར་ཕོག་ཏུ་ places mngon sum immediately before the archaic bcar phog, which Tibetan lexicography glosses as directly encountering or directly realizing and cross-references to ngo sprod. The cluster supports direct realization rather than attaching mngon sum backward to rang rig as “directly present vidyā”: Tibetan lexicography glosses archaic bcar phog as thad kar ngo sprod pa and “to realize directly.” Crucially, the supplied phrase ends in the overt terminative/purposive -tu. R87’s apposition—“this Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing—a direct encounter with one’s own vidyā—is exceedingly profound”—silently replaced that marked relation with identity/apposition, while the later “direct encounter” wording weakened the attested realization force. This revision preserves both lexical and grammatical force: “for the direct realization of one’s own vidyā, this Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing is exceedingly profound.” The rendering is source-local and does not mechanically translate every mngon sum or ngo sprod occurrence as realization.

རྒྱུད་ལུང་མན་ངག་རང་རིག་ཉམས་མྱོང་ཀུན༔ དགོངས་པ་མདོར་བསྡུས་ཉུང་གསལ་འདི་སྤྱར་རོ༔ first gives a complete source list—tantras, scriptural transmissions, pith instructions, and experiences of one’s own vidyā—and then says that their dgongs pa is condensed in this brief and clear composition. Here dgongs pa functions as the purport or intent of the listed teachings and experiences, not as the name of a contemplative state. This revision therefore reads “condensing the intent of all the tantras, scriptural transmissions, pith instructions, and experiences of one’s own vidyā.” This does not weaken the separate use of “transcendent state” where dgongs pa actually denotes the Dzogchen contemplative state. The supplied spelling spyar remains disclosed rather than silently normalized to sbyar, and nyung gsal, “brief and clear,” remains represented.

དམིགས་མེད་ཁྱབ་གདལ་བློ་དང་བྲལ་བ་འདི༔ འདི་ཀ་སྒོམ་པ་ཀུན་གྱི་ཡང་རྩེ་ཡིན༔ presents “this” directly with the qualities without reference point, all-pervasive, and beyond intellect. This revision removes the supplied-English head noun “state,” which is not expressed in these units, and uses an em-dash construction to preserve the demonstrative and predicate sequence.

དེ་ཉིད་རྟོགས་དང་མ་རྟོགས་ཁྱད་པར་ལས༔ འཁོར་འདས་བདེ་སྡུག་ཀུན་གྱི་གཞིར་གྱུར་པས༔ makes realization versus non-realization the condition under which it becomes the basis of all the happiness and suffering of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. This revision keeps that grouping intact instead of making “all saṃsāra and nirvāṇa” a separate object alongside happiness and suffering.

གདོད་ནས་གསལ་སྟོང་དབྱེར་མེད་ནམ་མཁའ་ལྟར༔ predicates primordial inseparability of clarity and emptiness and then gives “like the sky” as the simile. This revision therefore removes the inherited relative clause “the sky, where clarity and emptiness have been inseparable,” which incorrectly made the sky the locus of that primordial inseparability. The repaired passage reads “This nature of mind knows all, cognizes all, and is empty and clear; from the beginning, clarity and emptiness have been inseparable, like the sky.” No locative relation is added.

རིག་ཅིང་གསལ་བས་ནམ་མཁའ་ལྟ་བུར་རྟོགས༔ keeps cognizance and clarity as distinct coordinated predicates, carries causal -bas into the instruction, marks the comparison with lta bur (“as/like”), and ends in rtogs, “realize/understand.” R115’s “understand it by analogy with the sky” weakened the established realization force and recast the simile as an instrumental English relation. R116 therefore reads “Because this nature of mind is cognizant and clear, realize it to be like the sky.” This preserves the source predicate pair, causality, simile, and realization verb without inserting a knower entity.

ཅིར་ཡང་མ་གྲུབ་སྟོང་པ་ཆོས་ཀྱི་སྐུ༔ is a compact predicate sequence: unestablished as anything, empty, dharmakāya. R108 still used dash-apposition—“empty—the dharmakāya”—even though the source supplies no appositional particle. R109 reads “It is unestablished as anything whatsoever and empty; it is the dharmakāya,” using two English predications. The dharmakāya predication is supported by the enclosing three-kāya list and Tibetan zero-copula structure; it is not inferred merely from adjacency, and no causal “because” is added.

སེམས་ཉིད་མ་འགགས་སྣང་བ་གང་ཤར་ཡང་༔ ཤར་ཀྱང་མཚོ་ཡི་ཆུ་དང་ཆུ་རླབས་བཞིན༔ གཉིས་སུ་མེད་དེ་སེམས་ཀྱི་ངང་དུ་གྲོལ༔ first states that the nature of mind is unobstructed and then describes arising appearances. This revision separates those clauses rather than introducing an unmarked English “Because,” while preserving the water-and-waves analogy, nonduality, and liberation in mind’s own state.

ཐེག་དགུའི་བཤད་པ་ཤེས་བྱར་མཁས་གྱུར་ཀྱང་༔ describes becoming expert in the knowable content conveyed by the explanations of the nine vehicles. This revision reads “becomes expert in what the explanations of the nine vehicles teach,” preserving the shes bya scope without adding the universal “all,” which is not overt in this clause, and without reverting to the noun pile “the nine vehicles’ explanations of what is to be known.”

ཐམས་ཅད་རང་སེམས་འཁོར་འདས་དབྱེར་མེད་ལ༔ སྤང་བླང་འདོར་ལེན་ཐེག་པས་འཁོར་བར་འཁྱམས༔ does not contain an overt concessive corresponding to English “although,” and the wandering clause does not lexicalize “beings” as its subject. This revision therefore reads “Everything is one’s own mind; saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable. Through vehicles of abandoning and adopting, rejecting and accepting, one wanders in saṃsāra.” The generic “one” is only the minimum English subject required by the finite clause; it is not claimed as an overt Tibetan noun.

དེ་ཕྱིར་སེམས་དོན་ནམ་མཁས་མཚོན་དུ་མེད༔ says that the meaning of mind cannot be illustrated by the sky. This revision removes the inherited qualifier “fully,” which is reasonable as an explanatory inference from the preceding provisional-simile discussion but is not stated in this source unit itself.

རང་སེམས་སྟོངས་གསལ་ཡེ་ཤེས་རྟོགས་ཙམ་ན༔ remains a compact relation cluster. This revision retains the natural predicative unpacking “realizes one’s own mind as empty-and-clear pristine consciousness,” but records “as” as target-language syntax rather than an overt Tibetan case marker. Genitive and dash-appositional alternatives are rejected because they would likewise add a relation not explicitly marked by the supplied Tibetan.

དགེ་སྡིག་ཕན་གནོད་གང་ཡང་མ་གྲུབ་བོ༔ lists four coordinated items—virtue, nonvirtue, benefit, and harm—under the universal-negative gang yang ... ma grub, “none/none whatsoever is established.” This revision therefore reads “none of virtue, nonvirtue, benefit, or harm is established.” The superseded “neither virtue nor nonvirtue, benefit nor harm” mixed two English correlative patterns and made the scope of gang yang less transparent.

The four parallel exhaustion refrains begin ལྟ་བ་མི་མཐུན་རྒྱ་ཆེར་གྲངས་མང་ཡང་, སྒོམ་པ་མི་མཐུན་རྒྱ་ཆེན་གྲངས་མང་ཡང་, སྤྱོད་པ་མི་མཐུན་རྒྱ་ཆེན་གྲངས་མང་ཡང་, and འབྲས་བུ་མི་མཐུན་རྒྱ་ཆེ་གྲངས་མང་ཡང་. In each, rgya che(n/r) contributes extensive/vast scope and grangs mang contributes numerical multiplicity. This revision therefore reads “extensive and numerous” in all four parallel lines rather than flattening both source values into the single word “many.”

In the next line of each of those four refrains, the compact topic phrase ends in la: རང་རིག་སེམས་ཉིད་རང་བྱུང་ཡེ་ཤེས་ལ༔, རང་རིག་ཐ་མལ་ཤེས་པ་ཟང་ཐལ་ལ༔, རང་རིག་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཐིག་ལེ་ཉག་གཅིག་ལ༔, and རང་རིག་སེམས་ཉིད་སྐུ་གསུམ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ༔. R98 rendered all four with “within,” which made la into a spatial/container relation. R99 instead uses the relation-neutral topic frame “as for one’s own vidyā …,” after which the source states that the relevant pair is not two. This is an occurrence-level decision, not a rule that Tibetan la always means “as for.” The internal relations of the adjacent rang rig clusters remain compact/provisional except where an independent lexical compound is already established.

R114 reopens བག་ཆགས་འཁྲུལ་བའི་དབང་དུ་མ་སོང་བར༔. The final genitive -ba’i governs dbang, while the supplied Tibetan places bag chags and ’khrul ba in a compact sequence without an overt coordinating dang. R113’s “the power of habitual tendencies and delusion” therefore asserted a coordination the source does not mark. R114 reads “the power of delusive habitual tendencies,” preserving the compact relation without splitting it into two independently coordinated objects of “power.” The latest Tibetan-controlled Chinese independently uses 迷乱习气; that translation remains a secondary diagnostic witness and does not override the Tibetan.

R100 extends that same source-local relation audit to two immediately related follow-up clauses that R99 had missed. TU257, ད་ལྟའི་ཤེས་པ་མ་བཅོས་རང་གསལ་ལ༔, and TU270, ད་ལྟའི་ཤེས་རིག་རང་གསལ་ལྷུན་གྲུབ་ལ༔, likewise end their compact present-consciousness topic phrase in la. R99’s “within present consciousness …” and “within present knowing consciousness …” made those phrases into containers although the supplied Tibetan does not independently mark an English spatial relation there. R100 therefore reads “as for present consciousness—unaltered and self-clear—” and “as for present knowing consciousness—self-clear and naturally perfect—,” leaving the following conduct and three-kāya predicates intact. R102 separately re-audits pronominal de la clauses rather than exempting them categorically; three exhaustion follow-up clauses are repaired from spatial “Within it” to relation-neutral “With respect to that,” while genuine temporal/locative uses of la elsewhere remain governed by their own syntax and context.

R102 completes a broader source-relation and predicate-decomposition pass. It restores the single “eighty-four thousand gates of Dharma and so forth, inconceivable in number” construction at TUs 16–20; restores tshur in the direct exhortation as “come and listen”; treats ’di la at TU94 and the doubt-cutting TUs103/111 as reference/topic rather than physical location; removes the source-unwritten second-person narrowing at TU100; preserves gsal ba as the clarity predicate at TU96; and removes the possessive “their” from TU98, where ngo bo is rendered simply “essence.” In the sky-analogy sequence, R102 renders sems su rig as “are known as one’s own mind,” preserves rig cing gsal as the distinct predicates “is cognizant and clear,” and retains causal -bas, and splits yengs su med de / de ka’i ngang la zhog into “There is no distraction; rest in that very state.” Finally, stong pa nyid la at TU398 is rendered “with respect to emptiness itself,” avoiding an unsupported spatial container.

In the final title line, རིག་པ་མངོན་སུམ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་བསྟན་པའི་ཟབ་ཆོས་, mngon sum directly precedes ngo sprod. Earlier in this same controlling text, རྒྱལ་བའི་དགོངས་པ་མངོན་སུམ་ངོ་སྤྲོད་འདི་ uses the same mngon sum ngo sprod collocation in a clause already rendered as a “direct introduction.” The internal parallel therefore favors “the profound Dharma that teaches the direct introduction to vidyā” here, rather than attaching mngon sum backward to rig pa as “directly present vidyā.” This cross-language re-audit also found independent corroboration: the BDRC catalogue records the title phrase as rig pa mngon sum ngo sprod pa’i bstan bcos, while a scholarly transcription cited by Bayer has the still clearer rig pa mngon sum du ngo sprod pa, whose -du supports the adverbial/direct force with ngo sprod pa. The English body is therefore retained, and the competing Chinese backward attachment is superseded. This remains a local syntactic decision: elsewhere, where the Tibetan actually has rig pa mngon sum as its own phrase, “directly present vidyā” remains appropriate.

R104 reopens འདི་ཉིད་རང་ངོ་ཤེས་པར་བྱ་བའི་ཕྱིར༔. The purpose construction shes par bya ba’i phyir expresses the purpose of recognizing ’di nyid as one’s own face. The inherited passive “in order that this very point be recognized” was grammatically possible but unnecessarily obscured the recognition event. R104 therefore reads “In order to recognize this very point as one’s own face,” preserving the purpose relation and reflexive rang ngo without inventing a metaphysical knower.

R104 also reparses ཕྱི་རོལ་མུ་སྟེགས་ལོག་པར་རྟོག་པ་སྟེ༔ རྟག་ཆད་མཐའ་ལ་ལྟུང་བས་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག༔. The first unit contains no overt object corresponding to R103 “conceptualize it mistakenly,” while the second explicitly ends the falling-into-extremes clause in causal -bas. R104 therefore reads “Non-Buddhist outsiders conceptualize wrongly. Because they fall into the extremes of eternalism and nihilism, they are deluded.” This removes an unwritten object and makes the marked causal relation explicit without changing the surrounding doctrinal claim.

In ཡེངས་སུ་མེད་དེ་ངོ་བོ་ཉིད་ཀྱིས་གསལ༔, ngo bo nyid kyis functions adverbially/instrumentally with gsal. R103 “it is clear by its very essence” introduced a possessive target structure stronger than the source requires. R104 reads “There is no distraction; it is clear by nature,” preserving gsal as a clarity predicate and avoiding an unnecessary possessor/inner-entity implication.

The two occurrences རང་རིག་ཤེས་པ་རང་གསལ་ལྷང་ངེ་བ༔ and ད་ལྟའི་རང་རིག་ཤེས་པ་སལ་ལེ་བ༔ contain the compact family rang rig shes pa, not the separately attested lexical compound shes rig. Batch95 protects shes rig as “knowing consciousness” and requires rang rig to be parsed source-locally. R108 used “knowing consciousness” for both families, erasing that source distinction. R109 therefore reads “personally intuited consciousness” in these two rang rig shes pa occurrences while retaining “knowing consciousness” for genuine shes rig. This is a local lexical-head analysis with shes pa retained as “consciousness”; it is not a global replacement rule for rang rig.

འཁྲུལ་དང་མ་འཁྲུལ་ངོ་བོ་གཅིག་པ་སྟེ༔ says that delusion and non-delusion are the same with respect to ngo bo. R108 “are of one essence” could suggest a single shared metaphysical substance. R109 reads “are of the same nature,” preserving ngo bo gcig pa while avoiding target-language substantialization. No additional doctrinal explanation is inserted into the controlled body.

The final mountain description is not “the mountain of the dancing deity.” It says that Mount Gampo Dar resembles a dancing attendant of the mountain deity; the colophon has been repaired accordingly.

The Text

༁ྃ༔

From the Profound Dharma, Self-Liberation of the Intent of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones:

Here is the Introduction to Vidyā: Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing.

I bow to self-clear vidyā · deity of the three kāyas.

From the Profound Dharma, Self-Liberation of the Intent of the Peaceful and Wrathful Ones, the Introduction to Vidyā: Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing is taught.

In this way, introduce your own vidyā. Consider it well, fortunate child of noble family.

Samaya. Seal, seal, seal.

Emaho — The Single Mind Pervading Saṃsāra and Nirvāṇa

Emaho!

The single mind that pervades all of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa:
Although it has been oneself from the very beginning, it has not been recognized.
Although clear cognizance is uninterrupted, its face has not been encountered.
Although it arises unobstructedly as anything whatsoever, it has not been identified.

In order to recognize this very point as one’s own face,
the Victors of the three times taught the eighty-four thousand gates of Dharma and so forth,
inconceivable in number.
Everything they taught was solely for realizing this.
Apart from this, the Victors taught nothing else.

Although the scriptures are measureless, equal to the reaches of space,
in meaning they come down to the three statements introducing vidyā.

This direct introduction to the Victors’ intent is precisely this:
pointing it out without concealment or omission.

Kye ho! Fortunate children, come and listen!

The Fault of Not Recognizing Mind

This great, widely known term called “mind” (sems):
because it is not realized, is wrongly realized, or is realized only partially,
and because it is not realized exactly as it is,
inconceivably many philosophical assertions have arisen.

Ordinary beings do not realize it.
Not recognizing their own face,
they wander through the six [destinies] of the three realms and undergo suffering.
This is the fault of not realizing one’s own mind itself.

Non-Buddhist outsiders conceptualize wrongly.
Because they fall into the extremes of eternalism and nihilism, they are deluded.
This too is the fault of not realizing one’s own mind itself.

Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas seek only a partial realization of selflessness,
yet they do not realize it exactly as it is.
Moreover, bound by the assertions of their respective scriptures and tenets,
they are obscured and do not see luminosity.

Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are obscured by attachment to the apprehended and the apprehender.
Mādhyamikas are obscured by attachment to the extremes of the two truths.
Practitioners of Kriyā Tantra and Yoga Tantra are obscured by attachment to the extremes of approach and accomplishment.
Practitioners of Mahāyoga and Anuyoga are obscured by attachment to dhātu · vidyā.

They go astray by dividing the nondual meaning into two.
Unless the nondual meaning becomes one, buddhahood is not attained.
Everything is one’s own mind; saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are inseparable.
Through vehicles of abandoning and adopting, rejecting and accepting, one wanders in saṃsāra.

As for one’s own vidyā · the three kāyas, there is natural perfection without effort.
The deluded, calculating the grounds and paths, think, “This is not it,”
and seek methods that lead far away elsewhere;
thus they lose sight of the meaning.

The Buddha’s intent is beyond intellect.
By meditating and reciting with objects of focus and marks, one goes astray.
Therefore cast aside all fabricated dharmas and busy activities.

Since vidyā is taught here as self-liberation through naked seeing,
realize all phenomena as great self-liberation.
Therefore, in the Great Perfection, everything is complete.

Samaya. Seal, seal, seal.

The Many Names Given to Mind

Emaho!

What is called “mind” is keenly cognizant and vividly clear:
as for whether it exists, it does not exist as even a single thing;
as for what arises, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, happiness and suffering, arise in all their variety;
as for assertions, it is asserted according to the twelve vehicles;
as for names, inconceivably many distinct names are applied.

• Some call it “mind” (sems) [and] “nature of mind” (sems nyid).
• Some non-Buddhists give it the name “self” (bdag).
• Śrāvakas call it “the selflessness of persons.”
• Cittamātrins give it the name “mind.”
• Some give it the name “Madhyamaka.”
• Some call it the “Perfection of Wisdom.”
• Some give it the name “sugata essence.”
• Some give it the name “Mahāmudrā.”
• Some give it the name “the sole unique tilaka” (thig le nyag gcig) [also rendered “sole bindu”].
• Some give it the name “dharmadhātu.”
• Some give it the name “all-basis” (kun gzhi).
• Some give it the name “ordinary consciousness” (tha mal shes pa).

The Direct Introduction

If this is introduced through direct pointing-out:

After the past thought has vanished without a trace,
before the future thought has arisen, in that freshness,
when this ordinary consciousness of the present rests naturally and uncontrived
and you look directly at it yourself:

On looking, nothing is seen, yet there is lucid clarity.
Vidyā is directly present, naked and vivid.
Because nothing whatsoever is established, it is utterly empty.
Because clarity and emptiness are nondual, it is wide open.

It is not permanent; nothing whatsoever is established.
It is not annihilated; it is lucid and vivid.
It is not one; it cognizes multiplicity and is clear.
It is not established as many; it is inseparable and of one taste.
It is nowhere else; it is precisely one’s own vidyā.

This is an introduction to the meaning of how things are.

As for this, the three kāyas are complete as one and inseparable:

• It is unestablished as anything whatsoever and empty; it is the dharmakāya.
• The natural luminescence of emptiness is clear; it is the saṃbhogakāya.
• Unobstructed arising as anything whatsoever is the nirmāṇakāya.
• The three are complete as one; that is the essence.

If this is introduced forcefully by direct pointing-out:
it is precisely one’s own present consciousness.

Questions that Cut Through Doubt

Since it is precisely this unaltered self-clarity,
what does it mean to say that the nature of mind has not been realized?

Since there is nothing whatsoever to meditate on with respect to this,
what does it mean to say that it did not arise through meditation?

Since this directly present vidyā is precisely it,
what does it mean to say that one’s own mind was not found?

Since this is precisely uninterrupted clear cognizance,
what does it mean to say that mind’s face was not seen?

Since the one who thinks is mind itself,
what does it mean to say that it was sought but not found?

Since there is nothing whatsoever to do with respect to this,
what does it mean to say that it did not come about through action?

Since it is enough to leave it unaltered and self-clear,
what does it mean to say that one could not remain?

Since it is enough to leave it just as it is, with nothing to do,
what does it mean to say that one could not do so?

Since clarity, cognizance, and emptiness—the three—are inseparable and naturally perfect,
what does it mean to say that it was not accomplished through practice?

Since, without causes or conditions, it is self-originated and naturally perfect,
what does it mean to say that it could not be brought about through effort?

Since thoughts arise and are liberated simultaneously,
what does it mean to say that an antidote could not overcome them?

Since it is precisely this present consciousness,
what does it mean to say that this is not known?

Certainty in the Nature of Mind

It is certain that the nature of mind is empty and baseless.
One’s own mind is insubstantial, like empty space.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

This is not the view of a blank emptiness.
Self-originated pristine consciousness is certainly clear from the beginning.
Self-originated self-clarity is like the heart of the sun.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

It is certain that vidyā · pristine consciousness is uninterrupted.
Uninterrupted vidyā is like the flow of a river.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

It is certain that the movement of discursive thought cannot be identified.
Insubstantial movement is like a breeze in the air.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

It is certain that whatever appears is self-appearance.
Self-appearance is like a reflection in a mirror.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

It is certain that all marks are liberated in their own place.
Self-originated self-liberation is like clouds in the sky.
Look at your own mind and see whether it is like that or not.

Since no phenomenon exists elsewhere apart from mind,
there is no other phenomenon to view.

Since no phenomenon exists elsewhere apart from mind,
there is no other phenomenon to meditate on.

Since no phenomenon exists elsewhere apart from mind,
there is no other phenomenon to practice as conduct.

Since no phenomenon exists elsewhere apart from mind,
there is no other phenomenon to guard as samaya.

Since no phenomenon exists elsewhere apart from mind,
there is no other phenomenon to accomplish as fruition.

Look Again; Look Within

Look again, look again. Look at your own mind.

When you look outward into space,
if there is nowhere for this mind to go as it streams outward;

when you turn inward and look at your own mind,
if there is no one who sends thoughts streaming outward;

then your own mind is lucidly clear, without streaming outward.
Your own vidyā · empty luminosity is the dharmakāya.
It is like the sun rising in a clear, cloudless sky.
There is no conceptual thought; whatever there is is lucidly known.

The difference between realizing and not realizing this meaning is great.

This self-originated luminosity, unborn from the beginning,
is the parentless little child of vidyā—how wonderful!
This self-originated pristine consciousness, made by no one—how wonderful!
It has never experienced birth and will not die—how wonderful!
Although directly present and clear, there is no seer—how wonderful!
Although it wanders in saṃsāra, it does not become worse—how wonderful!
Even upon attaining buddhahood, it does not become better—how wonderful!
Although present in all, it is not recognized—how wonderful!
One leaves this aside and hopes for another fruition—how wonderful!
Although it is present in oneself, it is sought elsewhere—how wonderful!

Emaho!

This present clear vidyā, free of substance,
is itself the very pinnacle of all views.

This—without reference point, all-pervasive, and beyond intellect—
is itself the very pinnacle of all meditations.

This unaltered, non-grasping, relaxed resting
is itself the very pinnacle of all conduct.

This—unsought and naturally perfect from the very beginning—
is itself the very pinnacle of all fruitions.

The Four Great Unerring Standards and the Four Great Changeless Nails

Because there is no error, the four great standards are taught:

1. The great unerring standard of the view
   is this present vidyā, lucidly clear.
   Because it is clear and unerring, it is called a standard.
2. The great unerring standard of meditation
   is this present consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it is clear and unerring, it is called a standard.
3. The great unerring standard of conduct
   is this present consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it is clear and unerring, it is called a standard.
4. The great unerring standard of fruition
   is this present consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it is clear and unerring, it is called a standard.

The four great changeless nails are taught:

1. The great nail of the changeless view
   is precisely this present knowing consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it shows the three times, it is called a nail.
2. The great nail of changeless meditation
   is precisely this present knowing consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it shows the three times, it is called a nail.
3. The great nail of changeless conduct
   is precisely this present knowing consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it shows the three times, it is called a nail.
4. The great nail of changeless fruition
   is precisely this present knowing consciousness, lucidly clear.
   Because it shows the three times, it is called a nail.

Pith Instruction: Settling the Three Times as One

Do not pursue what came before; discard the notion of the past.
Do not welcome what lies ahead; cut the cord that links the mind forward.
Leave the present without grasping, in a sky-like state.

There is nothing to meditate on; do not meditate on anything.
There is no distraction; rely on undistracted mindfulness.
In the state of nonmeditation and nondistraction, look directly.

Personally intuited consciousness is self-clear and vivid.
That very arising is called bodhicitta.
There is nothing to meditate on; it is beyond the domain of what can be known.
There is no distraction; it is clear by nature.
Appearance-emptiness is self-liberated; clarity-emptiness is the dharmakāya.

Buddhahood is not accomplished by a path; since it becomes manifest, Vajrasattva is seen at this time.

Bringing View, Meditation, Conduct, and Fruition to Exhaustion

The instruction for reaching the ultimate place of exhaustion:

Although divergent views are extensive and numerous,
as for one’s own vidyā · nature of mind · self-originated pristine consciousness,
there is no duality of a viewed object and a viewer.
Do not look at the view; search for the one who looks.
If that looker is sought and not found,
the view is then brought to the place of exhaustion.
The ultimate point of the view comes down to precisely that.

Although there is nothing whatsoever to view,
without lapsing into a flat emptiness of primordial nonexistence,
the present personally intuited consciousness, lucidly clear,
is itself the view of the Great Perfection.
With respect to that, there is no duality of realization and non-realization.

Although divergent meditations are extensive and numerous,
as for one’s own vidyā · pellucid ordinary consciousness,
there is no duality of an object of meditation and a meditator.
Instead of meditating, search for the meditator.
If the meditator is sought and not found,
meditation is then brought to the place of exhaustion.
The ultimate point of meditation comes down to precisely that.

Although there is nothing whatsoever to meditate on,
without falling under the sway of laxity, drowsiness, mental fog, or agitation,
this present unaltered consciousness is lucidly clear.
Resting in unaltered equipoise is concentration (bsam gtan).
With respect to that, there is no duality of abiding and not abiding.

Although divergent forms of conduct are extensive and numerous,
as for one’s own vidyā · pristine consciousness · the sole unique tilaka,
there is no duality of conduct to be practiced and the practitioner.
Do not engage in conduct; search for the practitioner.
If that practitioner is sought and not found,
conduct is then brought to the place of exhaustion.
The ultimate point of conduct comes down to precisely that.

Although there is nothing whatsoever to practice as conduct,
without falling under the sway of delusive habitual tendencies,
as for present consciousness—unaltered and self-clear—
without modifying, tampering with, accepting, or rejecting anything,
that itself is completely pure conduct.
With respect to that, there is no duality of purity and impurity.

Although divergent fruitions are extensive and numerous,
as for one’s own vidyā · nature of mind · naturally perfect three kāyas,
there is no duality of a fruition to be accomplished and an accomplisher.
Do not accomplish the fruition; search for the one who would accomplish it.
If that accomplisher is sought and not found,
fruition is then brought to the place of exhaustion.
The ultimate point of fruition comes down to precisely that.

Although there is nothing whatsoever to accomplish as fruition,
without falling under the sway of acceptance and rejection, hope and fear,
as for present knowing consciousness—self-clear and naturally perfect—
the three kāyas become manifest; that is self-clear realization itself—the very fruition of primordial buddhahood.

Names Applied to Vidyā

This vidyā is free from the eight extremes, including eternalism and nihilism.
Because it falls into no extreme, it is called the “Middle Way.”
It is called “vidyā of uninterrupted wakeful cognizance.”
Because emptiness is endowed with the essence of vidyā,
it is given the name “sugata essence.”

If this meaning is known, it is supreme among all knowables.
Therefore it is called the “Perfection of Wisdom.”
Because it is beyond intellect and primordially free from extremes,
it is given the name “Mahāmudrā.”
Depending on whether this very point is realized or not,
it becomes the basis of all the happiness and suffering of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa;
therefore it is given the name “all-basis.”

When this lucidly clear and vivid consciousness rests naturally, uncontrived and ordinary,
it is given the name “ordinary consciousness.”

However many attractive and fine-sounding names are applied,
in reality, whoever considers anything other than this present knowing consciousness to be superior
is like someone who has found an elephant but still searches for its tracks.
Even if one were to [search] to the farthest reaches of the three-thousandfold universe, nothing superior could be found.

Apart from mind, no buddha can be found.
Not knowing this meaning, even if one searches for mind outside,
how could one find oneself by searching for another?

For example, it is like a fool among a crowd
who loses himself through watching a spectacle.
Not recognizing his own face, he searches elsewhere.
Such is the delusion of searching for another when the one who is lost is oneself.

Because one does not see the way things are by nature
and does not know appearances to be mind, one strays into saṃsāra.
One does not realize one’s own mind as buddha; nirvāṇa is obscured.

Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are distinguished by vidyā and ignorance
within a single instant.
Seeing one’s own mind as something other is delusion.
Delusion and non-delusion are of the same nature.

For beings, because the mindstream is not established as two,
one is liberated by leaving the nature of mind unaltered in its own place.
If this very delusion is not known as mind,
the meaning of dharmatā will never be realized;
therefore, self-originated, self-arisen, and self-clear—look at yourself.

Where did these appearances first arise?
Where do they remain in the middle, and where do they go in the end?
When examined, they are like a crow at a pond:
although it flies up from the pond, it has nowhere apart from the pond to go.
Likewise, because appearance arises in mind,
it arises in one’s own mind and is liberated in mind.

Everything that Appears Is Mind

This nature of mind knows all, cognizes all, and is empty and clear;
from the beginning, clarity and emptiness have been inseparable, like the sky.
When it is ascertained that self-originated pristine consciousness is directly present and clear,
that itself is dharmatā.

The sign of this is that all appearance and existence
are known as one’s own mind.
Because this nature of mind is cognizant and clear,
realize it to be like the sky.

Although the sky is posited as an example symbolizing dharmatā,
for the time being, it is merely a sign illustrating one aspect.
The nature of mind is cognizant, empty, and clear in every respect.
The sky lacks cognizance: it is empty, an insentient void.
Therefore the meaning of mind cannot be illustrated by the sky.
There is no distraction; rest in that very state.

Although these various conventional appearances are grasped as true,
not even one is truly established.
Therefore all appearance and existence, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa,
are perceptual appearances of one’s own single nature of mind.

When one’s own mindstream changes even slightly,
the change extends outward; as a result, corresponding perceptual appearances arise.
Therefore everything is a perceptual appearance of mind.
The six classes of beings see their respective appearances.
Non-Buddhist outsiders see in terms of the two extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
The nine successive vehicles see according to their respective views.
They see diversity, and the diverse appearances are not identical;
grasping them as separate, they are deluded by their respective attachments.

Since all appearances are mind’s vidyā,
although perceived appearances arise, not grasping them is buddhahood.
Appearances themselves are not mistaken; delusion arises through grasping.
When grasping thoughts are known as mind, they are naturally liberated.

Whatever appears, all of it appears through mind:

• Even the appearance of the container-world as inanimate matter is mind.
• Even the appearance of the six classes of sentient beings—the animate contents—is mind.
• Even the appearance of happiness among gods and humans in the higher realms is mind.
• Even the appearance of suffering in the three lower realms is mind.
• Even the appearance of ignorance · afflictions · the five poisons is mind.
• Even the appearance of self-originated pristine consciousness as vidyā is mind.
• Even the appearance of negative thoughts · the habitual tendencies of saṃsāra is mind.
• Even the appearance of positive thoughts · the buddhafield of nirvāṇa is mind.
• Even the appearance of obstacles from māras and spirits is mind.
• Even when deities and siddhis appear auspiciously, that too is mind.
• Even the appearance of various conceptual thoughts is mind.
• Even abiding in one-pointed meditation without thought is mind.
• Even the appearance of the colors of phenomena with marks is mind.
• Even signlessness and non-proliferation are mind.
• Even the appearance of the nonduality of one and many is mind.
• Even the appearance of not being established as either existent or nonexistent is mind.
• Apart from mind, there is no appearance whatsoever.

The nature of mind is unobstructed. Whatever appearance arises,
even as it arises, is like ocean water and waves: it is nondual
and is liberated in the state of mind.

Although there is no obstruction to designation, no matter what name may be applied,
in reality there is only a single nature of mind.
Even this single nature of mind is baseless and rootless.
Whichever direction one looks, not even one thing is seen.

It is not seen as a substance; nothing whatsoever is established.
It is not seen as emptiness; there is the radiance of cognizance and clarity.
Clarity and emptiness are not seen separately; they are inseparable.

Right now, one’s own vidyā is vividly clear.
Even if one were to make it so, one would not know how to do so.
Although it lacks intrinsic nature, it is directly experienced.
When this itself is experienced, everything is liberated.
There is no distinction between sharp and dull faculties in realizing it.

Although sesame and milk are sources of oil and butter respectively,
unless the milk is churned and the sesame is pressed, neither emerges.
Likewise, although all beings are in actuality buddha-nature,
without putting this into practice, sentient beings do not attain buddhahood.
When it is put into practice, even a cowherd is liberated.

Although one does not know how to explain it, one ascertains it directly.
Just as no one else needs to explain the taste of molasses once one has tasted it oneself,
even a paṇḍita who does not realize this is deluded.
Even if one becomes expert in what the explanations of the nine vehicles teach,
this is like recounting a tale about a distant place one has never seen.
One has not come near buddhahood even for an instant.

When this is realized, virtue and nonvirtue are liberated in their own place.
When it is not realized, whatever virtuous or nonvirtuous acts one performs,
one does not transcend saṃsāra in either the higher or lower realms.

The moment one realizes one’s own mind as empty-and-clear pristine consciousness,
none of virtue, nonvirtue, benefit, or harm is established.
Just as water does not collect in empty space,
with respect to emptiness itself, virtue and nonvirtue have never been established.

Therefore, for the direct realization of one’s own vidyā, this Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing is exceedingly profound.
Therefore become familiar with this vidyā of your own.

Profound. Seal, seal, seal.

Colophon

Emaho!

This Introduction to Vidyā: Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing
was composed for the benefit of fortunate people of future generations in the degenerate age
as a brief and clear text condensing the intent of all the tantras,
scriptural transmissions, pith instructions, and experiences of one’s own vidyā.
Do not disseminate it now; conceal it as a precious treasure.
May it meet in the future with those who have a karmic affinity.

Samaya. Seal, seal, seal.

The profound Dharma that teaches the direct introduction to vidyā, called Self-Liberation through Naked Seeing, composed by the Master of Oḍḍiyāna, Padmasambhava, is complete.

Samaya. Seal, seal, seal.

The treasure revealer and siddha Karma Lingpa brought it forth from Mount Gampo Dar, which resembles a dancing attendant of the mountain deity.

Return to the beginning ↑