具悲摧苦故，勤修諸方便。方便生彼因，不現彼難說。

以教理觀察，由苦性差別，當了別苦因，彼無常等性。

如是因安住，不見果遮故。為摧彼因故，當觀彼逆品。

了達因性故，亦解彼逆品。由我我所執，有為為行境，

貪愛是其因。彼之能害者，見無我，相違。眾相多方便，

經長時修習，於其德失相，當能極明顯。心亦明顯故，

因習氣永斷。能仁為利他，勝出麟喻等。義故修方便，

許彼是大師。成就先起故，說此二為因。因斷具三德，

是為善逝性。非苦所依故。是善，見無我，或從彼加行。

生及過普起，說為復退轉，斷我見種故，是不退轉性。

彼諦異體性。身語心粗重，無煩惱無病，餘說道不明。

修故無餘斷。有說語等故，過失非永盡。此遮相猶豫，

故是錯亂因。常故、無便故、或便無知故，為何遍計說，

諸過失無盡？有因故，由修，因對治盡故，由了知因性，

知彼亦成立。救護者宣說，親自所見道。無果，不妄語。

具足悲心故，凡一切所作，為利他行故。以故是定量。

復次救護者，宣說四聖諦。苦流轉諸蘊。由修習現見，

貪等明顯故。非是隨欲性，無因生違故。由有錯亂故，

非風等之法。若謂性雜故，無過。則彼法，餘法何不見？

一切貪應同，故非一切法。如色等無過。若非由特殊，

諸業增上者，彼諍亦相同。若計貪等是，一切法性者，

無能、無自性，果由何不同？諸患雖有別，而無差別故。

不成者，非爾。一切變，變故，亦非一切生。若因增長時，

果不可衰減，猶如煩熱等。貪等之轉變，是從苦樂生。

不等分生苦，若不生貪者，當說由何生？由等分增液，

從彼生貪者，不等見有貪，餘等分亦非。餘盡，滴血亦。

一女液無定，於一不猛貪。若色等亦支。非，皆不定故。

無定，應不生。不執德，應生。執德亦是支。應一切皆成，

執為功德者，因無差別故。若時許有貪，如是非有瞋，

二體不同故。不見此決定。若誰說貪等，依賴於同類，

習氣差別轉，彼無此過失。此破大種性，所依亦破故。

白色等非是，依止於地等。依聲亦因義，或與自所依，

無別而住故，是依餘非理。若如醉等能，有別，非離事，

有餘義功能。能壞事應壞。所依若全住，能依應非壞。

若相同，非爾，了達現相異，大種心異故。乃至身壞時，

如色等，意體，應同。然分別，豈是義增上？若時無待身，

有識為餘識，習氣醒覺因，故從識生識。非識則非識，

親因故亦成。若許一切事，具識能故者，草等端百象，

先不見言有，除如牛數論，餘有慚誰說？百次分析因，

所應見體性，彼性先不見，如何彼當有？從先無而生，

貪等應無定。未越大種故，若都具貪等，一切貪應同。

若由大種別，諸種無生別，然此別所依，如其彼增減，

此從有應無。若貪等雖異，因同體無遮，故非。因體同，

一切貪應同。同體生牛識，或此中地等，非有有情等，

諸差別次第。暖次雖有別，非有無暖火。如是此亦爾。

非爾以離暖，餘火已破故。若有餘功德，具差別次第，

彼等彼差別。可斷如白等。非定如色等，與種無別故。

若彼同，曰非，貪等應俱故。遍計為境故，境亦非能定。

離同類因故，貪等應無定，或因相近故，諸覺於一切，

一切時應生。彼暫可得故，無常。過依故，因自在故，苦。

非我。非加持。非因非能持。常如何能生？故非從一因，

多果異時生。雖餘因和合，亦不生果故。若比知餘因，

諸常非有彼。由是暫時性，成苦性有因。無因，不待他；

應常有，或無。若如棘刺等，銳利等無因。如是皆無因，

有作如是說。若此有彼生，若此變彼變，說此是彼因，

此於彼亦有。觸是色因故，於見是因由。破常；亦非有，

從自在等生，無能故。是故，有貪是為因。何故？謂諸人，

遍執境差別，得彼意樂作，彼有貪。何故？有情於樂苦，

欲得捨而轉，計彼等即是，欲愛及壞愛。由著我為因，

於非樂樂想，於一切尋求，故愛是有依。離貪不見生，

諸論師所說。無身不見貪，從身亦生貪，許彼因故許。

是遣除親因。若隨許此理，自害自所計。若生見貪故，

謂與生俱起，同類生，前成。「不知」是有因，未說，唯說愛，

能引相續故，無間故。非業，有彼有無故。彼非堅固性，

因有碍等故。轉故無解脫。非，許，不成故。若未壞我貪，

彼當受逼惱。爾時增益苦，不能住自性。雖無解脫者，

勤摧邪增益。離貪安住者，由悲或由業。引業無遮欲。

已越有愛者，非餘所能引。俱有已盡故。知苦以無違，

前行隨轉者，事法生悲愍，非連繫有情。彼於無我法，

增餘我而貪，由了苦相續，而生起悲愍。痴是過根本，

彼是執有情，無彼則不從，過因而生瞋，故許悲無過。

非無有解脫，由宿行已盡，不續餘生故。行功能無盡，

彼住無過失。由悲下劣故，無大功力住。若是大悲者，

為他而安住。離薩迦耶見，初道應無有。未斷俱生故。

若斷豈有有？若欲得安樂，及欲不受苦，所有念我覺，

俱生有情見。若不見有我，則全非我貪。若無有我愛，

非求樂奔馳。生苦因即縛，於常何有彼？不生苦因解，

於常何有彼？不可說無常。彼非任何因。於不可說中，

縛解皆非有。若自性無壞，智者說彼常，棄此可羞見，

當說彼是常。修彼已說道，轉依。雖轉依，如道過復起。

非爾，無能故。識是取境法，如有而取彼。彼所有體性，

亦是此能生。是此性。從此，由餘緣歧誤。遮止觀待緣。

不堅如蛇覺。心自性光明，諸垢是客塵，故先無能者，

成性後無能。有能，於能生，損害堅實事，亦不能久住，

如濕地上火。無害，真實義，於自性。顛倒，盡力，不能遮，

覺持彼品故。我執一因性，是因果事故，貪瞋雖互異，

然非能違害。慈等愚無違，非極治罰過，眾過彼為本，

彼是迦耶見。見明逆品故，心所所緣故，說邪緣無明，

故餘不應理。相違此當說，空見違彼故，與彼性諸過。

相違善成立。眾生法性故，非盡，如色等。非爾，不成故。

若連對治品，現見可遮故。已滅諸過失，非如堅還生。

彼體使無繫，如灰不定故。若彼見有我，當常著於我。

由著：愛於樂。由愛，障眾過，見德而遍愛。我所彼成取，

故貪著於我，爾時當流轉。有我則知他，我他分執瞋，

由此等相繫，起一切過失。我愛則決定，不離我所愛。

無過則我愛，離因亦非有。若謂貪有過，修此有何益？

若謂能斷彼，未破除此境，非能斷彼貪。斷德失相連，

貪及瞋恚等，由不見彼境，非由外道理。貪非由德貪，

是見義功德。其因無所缺，何能遮其果？見貪有何過？

若謂苦所依，雖爾非離貪，見我所如我。若謂無我所，

我非苦因者，彼亦與此同。如是俱無過，故俱非離貪。

若如蛇傷肢，修苦而斷者。要摧我所覺，捨此非能遮。

由執著根等，為受用所依，自覺何能遮？如何能離貪？

於離身發等，雖起厭離心，於餘生貪著，是眾所現見。

彼由和合繫，產生自所覺，繫如前住故，雖見苦不捨。

雖無和合等，而有饒益性。生苦故如指，不起自所心。

彼非一向苦，多如有毒食。由貪殊勝樂，於相違離貪，

由愛殊勝樂，暫捨少分樂。無思由貪我，隨得食而趣。

如未獲婦女，見於畜行欲。所欲為我者，云何欲彼滅？

領受及名言，德所依息滅。如何是所著？所著性不爾。

一切相執我，則堅固我貪。彼即是安住，我所執種位。

雖勤，依德轉，障我所離貪，亦障彼過失。若於我離貪，

則無離貪者，如彼亦許我，修苦則無義。雖修彼等苦，

僅識為苦性，彼先已現見，雖爾無離貪。若由見彼過，

剎那遮彼心，然彼非離貪，如欲於餘婦。有取捨差別，

從一所生貪，隨彼生起時，即一切貪種。無過有境貪，

能成亦無過，眾生亦唯爾，今於何離貪？於彼彼有過，

彼於我亦同。彼過不離貪，更於何離貪？由見德起著，

見過失則滅。如是根非爾，愚等亦見故，見過亦有故。

雖具足功德，於他則無故，及於過去等，我所亦無故。

是故我所覺，因非由見德，故見非功德，亦非能斷彼。

又增不實德，由貪亦見彼，成彼因無害，如何能害彼？

上求利他故，有生滅覺故，此眾生了知，我異於根等，

故非見一貪，其貪著我者，是於緣內支，本性而貪著。

若由現在苦，厭離是瞋彼，非離貪。爾時，有貪求餘故。

瞋苦為因故，彼唯爾時住，彼滅則自己，仍依於自性。

取捨俱斷故，於刀割香塗，觀一切平等，說名為離貪。

經說修苦者，意依於行苦。我彼從緣生，是無我見依。

空見得解脫，餘修即為此。故說無常苦，由苦故無我。

非離貪，有愛，依止諸發趣，非解脫惑業，彼名生死者。

不許我所性，則無彼受者，造作受用相，彼我亦應無。

故欲解脫者，當根除無始，同類因種生，諸薩迦耶見。

教說如是事，諸未見因者，說教能解脫，不能使歡喜。

咒種等儀軌，非使人不生。塗油火燒等，我亦應解脫。

先重後輕故，非能消滅罪，使此重性無，無體罪非重。

邪智及彼生，愛思增上力，生趣下賤處。故斷彼不趣。

唯從彼生故，即彼等能生。彼思即業故，能生因無失。

趣與達所依，彼從不見生，不見滅，無趣。故是行，非思。

隨有無轉故。能生作根者，見覺有功能，非是由餘力。

彼等既有彼，云何而不趣？若彼等無能，灌頂等無間，

彼等由思力，取、轉與散亂，及滅皆應無。若謂於彼時，

無覺故不生。諸垢覺相續，彼等能若無，活亦應無能。

對治與自品，增則減增故。罪流有自種，灌頂不能遮。

常，無觀待故，次第生相違，作不作同性，造作成相違。

因果亦應一。彼等若異彼，作受者失壞。功能亦不成。

他憶受等過，都無所妨難，全無念者故。是從受生念。

於四諦增益，堅、樂、我、我所，此等十六相，非真而愛著。

於彼相違義，真性相了達，善修之正見，能破愛隨行。

業身雖安住，三因缺一故，其生則非有，如無種無芽。

非斷業及身，無能對治故。無能故。有愛，仍能生起故。

為盡二雖勤，盡業勞無義。見種種果故，比知業功能，

有多種差異，故一苦惱事，不能使都盡。有行使彼生，

果報有減少，非一切異類，所應受果報。

若由苦行力，使功能合盡，為染分能斷，應無染遍斷。

若苦行異染，或即是煩惱，彼即業果故，則此不能使，

功能合雜等。摧欲生過故，能滅諸過者，能害彼生業。

已作如何失？非從業起過，有患乃能作，已遮則不作。

若無邪分別，樂亦不起貪。由救成證知：真、固、無餘別。

善逝證義故，較外道、有學、無學增上故。為利他勤修，

智加行大師。由彼須悲心，義成為利他，不捨所作故。

由悲故善說，由智而諦說，說彼並能立，成就其加行，

故是定量性。彼事讚大師，為即由彼教，成立為定量。

不遮比量故，說凡生性者，皆是壞滅法，見由多種相，

顯此加行故。無不生相因，是比量所依，明所立遍因，

亦顯了說彼。

With compassion, they remove suffering, And diligently cultivate skillful means. The means arise from that cause— Not evident, so hard to express.

Through reasoning and scripture, By the distinctions of suffering's nature, One discerns suffering's cause— Its impermanence and such qualities.

Thus the cause abides, And no obstruction of the result is seen. To destroy that cause, One must observe its opposing force.

Understanding the cause's nature, One also grasps its antidote. Due to grasping at self and mine, Conditioned things become the sphere of action,

And craving is its cause. What can harm it is Seeing non-self—the direct opposite. Through many aspects and various means,

Over long periods of practice, The features of faults and virtues Become extremely clear. The mind too becomes lucid,

So habitual tendencies are severed forever. The Able One, for others' good, Surpasses solitary sages and such. For that purpose, he cultivates means—

He is recognized as the Great Teacher. Because accomplishment comes first, These two are said to be the cause. When the cause is cut, three qualities are complete—

That is the nature of the Sugata. Not a basis for suffering. It is good; see non-self, Or the practice toward it.

Birth and faults arise universally, Said to be regression. But severing the seed of self-view, One becomes non-regressing in nature.

That truth is of different essence. The heaviness of body, speech, and mind— No afflictions, no illness— Other paths are taught as unclear.

Through practice, they are cut without remainder. Some say that because speech and so on exist, Faults are not forever ended. This hesitation about obstruction

Is thus a cause of confusion. Because it is permanent, because no means exist, Or because the means are unknown— Why do some imagine

That faults are endless? Because there is a cause, through practice, The antidote to the cause exhausts it. By understanding the cause's nature,

One knows that too is established. The Protector proclaimed The path he personally saw. Without result, he would not lie.

Because he possesses compassion, Whatever he does Is for others' benefit. Therefore he is a valid authority.

Furthermore, the Protector Taught the Four Noble Truths. Suffering—the flowing aggregates. Through practice, one directly sees

Craving and so on clearly. It is not mere wish, Not arising without cause—that contradicts. Because there is distortion,

It is not like wind and such elements. If one says: "Their nature is mixed, So no fault"—then why are other things Not seen in that same way?

All craving should be the same, So it is not all things. Like form and so on—no fault. If not through something special,

Through the force of karma, That dispute would be the same. If one imagines craving and so on Are the nature of all things,

Then without power, without self-nature, How would results differ? Though faults are distinct, There is no difference in nature.

It does not hold—not so. All change, because they change, Nor does everything arise. When the cause increases,

The result cannot diminish, Like heat and such. The transformation of craving Arises from pleasure and pain.

If suffering arises from imbalance, And craving does not arise, Then from what is it said to arise? From balance, fluids increase—

From that, craving arises. But imbalance is seen with craving— Other balances too are not it. When the rest are exhausted, even drops of blood—

One woman's fluids are not fixed; Toward one, there is no intense craving. If form and so on are also factors— No, because all are uncertain.

Without certainty, it should not arise. Not perceiving virtue, it should arise. Perceiving virtue is also a factor. Everything should become

An object perceived as virtue, Because the cause is no different. If at times craving is admitted, Then hatred is not like this—

Their natures are different. This certainty is not seen. If someone says craving and so on Depend on similar kinds,

Turning through differences in habit, They have no such fault. This refutes the gross-element nature, Because the basis is also refuted.

White color and so on are not Dependent on earth and such. Depending on sound is also a cause-meaning, Or because it abides

Without distinction from its own basis, Depending on another is unreasonable. If like intoxication it can Be distinct, not separate from the matter,

There is another function. What can destroy the matter should destroy it. If the basis remains fully, The dependent should not be destroyed.

If the same—not so, Because the appearance is understood as different: Gross elements and mind are different. Even when the body is destroyed,

Like form and so on, the mental body Should be the same. But is discrimination Merely an object's influence? When there is no dependence on the body,

One consciousness becomes the cause For another consciousness's habit to awaken, So consciousness arises from consciousness. What is not consciousness does not become consciousness—

As the direct cause, it also holds. If one admits all things Possess consciousness-capacity, Then a hundred elephants on a blade of grass—

Never seen before, yet said to exist— Except for the Sāṃkhya counting cows, Who with shame would say this? Analyzing the cause a hundred times,

The nature that should be seen Was not seen before— How could it exist? Arising from what was not before,

Craving and so on should be uncertain. Not beyond the gross elements, If all had craving, All craving would be the same.

If through differences in gross elements— The elements have no arising-difference— But this difference's basis, As it increases or decreases,

This should not exist from what exists. If craving and so on are different, The cause being the same, there is no obstruction— So no. Because the cause is the same,

All craving should be the same. From the same nature arises cow-consciousness, Or here earth and so on— There are no beings and such,

No sequence of differences. Though warmth's sequence differs, There is no fire without warmth. So too here.

Not so—because apart from warmth, Other fire is already refuted. If there are other qualities With different sequences,

Those have their differences. They can be cut like whiteness and so on. Not fixed like form and so on, Because they are no different from the elements.

If that is the same, one says no— Craving and so on should arise together. Being imagined as objects, The object also cannot determine.

Apart from similar causes, Craving and so on should be uncertain. Or because causes are close, All perceptions toward everything

Should arise at all times. That is briefly obtainable, So it is impermanent. Because it depends on faults, Because the cause is independent—suffering.

Not self. Not empowerment. Not cause, not sustainer. How can the permanent produce? So not from one cause

Do many results arise at different times. Though other causes combine, Results still do not arise. If one infers other causes—

The permanent has none of those. Therefore, being temporary, It becomes suffering with a cause. Without cause, not depending on others,

It should be eternal, or nonexistent. If like thorns and such— Sharpness and so on without cause— Thus all would be without cause,

Some say so. If this exists, that arises; If this changes, that changes— This is said to be that's cause.

This applies to that too. Contact is the cause of form, And for seeing, it is a reason. Refuting the permanent—nor does it exist—

From an overlord and such, Because there is no power. Therefore, Craving exists as the cause. Why? Because people,

Imagining differences in objects, Gain that intention and act— That is craving. Why? Beings toward pleasure and pain

Wish to gain and abandon— They consider these to be Craving for desire and craving for destruction. Because grasping at self is the cause,

Toward what is not pleasure, they think "pleasure," And seek it everywhere. So craving has a basis. Without craving, no arising is seen—

So say the treatises. Without a body, craving is not seen; From the body, craving also arises— Because it is admitted as its cause, it is admitted.

That removes the direct cause. If one follows this reasoning, One harms one's own position. If craving arises upon seeing,

It arises together with birth, Born of the same kind, previously established. "Ignorance" has a cause— Not stated; only craving is taught,

Because it leads the continuum, Because it is immediate. Not karma— Because when that exists, this exists or not. That is not stable,

Because the cause has obstruction and such. Because it turns, there is no liberation. No—admitted, because it is not established. If self-craving is not destroyed,

One will be tormented. Then suffering increases, Unable to abide in its own nature. Though there is no one liberated,

One diligently destroys wrong projections. Those free from craving abide Through compassion or through karma. Leading karma does not block desire.

Those who have crossed attachment to existence Cannot be led by others. The co-existent is already exhausted. Knowing suffering without contradiction,

Those who act and follow Generate compassion for conditioned things— Not for beings who are connected. Toward selfless phenomena,

They project a self and crave— By understanding suffering's continuum, Compassion arises. Ignorance is the root of faults;

It is grasping at beings. Without it, hatred does not arise From faulty causes— So compassion is held to be faultless.

Liberation is not absent, Because past actions are exhausted, And no further life continues. The function of actions is not endless;

That abides without fault. Because compassion is inferior, One does not abide with great effort. If one has great compassion,

One abides for others. Apart from the view of self, The first path should not exist— Because the co-born is not cut.

If cut, how could existence remain? If one desires happiness And wishes not to suffer, All thoughts of "I"—

That is the co-born view of beings. If one does not see a self, Then there is no self-craving at all. If there is no self-love,

One does not rush after pleasure. The cause of birth-suffering is bondage— How could that exist in the permanent? The non-arising of birth-suffering is freedom—

How could that exist in the permanent? It cannot be said to be impermanent. It is not any cause. In what cannot be said,

Bondage and freedom both do not exist. If self-nature is not destroyed, The wise call that permanent. Abandoning this shameful view,

One should say it is permanent. Having cultivated the path taught for it, One transforms the basis. Though transformed, Like the path, faults arise again.

Not so—because there is no capacity. Consciousness is what takes objects, Taking them as they are. Its entire nature

Is also what generates this. It is this nature. From this, Through other conditions, it goes astray. Blocking dependence on conditions—

Not stable, like the snake-illusion. The mind's nature is luminous; Defilements are adventitious. So first there is no capacity,

And after becoming nature, no capacity either. If there were capacity, toward generating, Harming solid things Could not last long,

Like fire on wet ground. Without harm, the true meaning Is in self-nature. Distortion, Even with full effort, cannot be blocked,

Because awareness holds that aspect. Self-grasping has a single cause— Because it is a cause-effect matter, Craving and hatred, though distinct,

Do not contradict each other. Loving-kindness and such do not oppose ignorance— They are not the ultimate punishment of faults. All faults have it as their root—

That is the view of the body. Because seeing is the opposite of it, Because it is a mental factor's object, Ignorance is said to have wrong objects, So other accounts are unreasonable.

The opposite—this should be said: The view of emptiness contradicts it, And with that nature, all faults Are well established as contradictory.

Because it is the nature of beings, It is not exhausted, like form and so on. Not so—because it is not established. If connected with the antidote,

It is seen to be blocked. Once faults are extinguished, They do not arise again like something solid.

That nature makes them unbound, Like ash—not fixed. If one sees a self, One will always be attached to self.

Through attachment: craving for pleasure. Through craving, all faults are obscured; Seeing virtue, one craves everything. What is "mine" becomes grasping,

So one clings to self— Then one wanders in saṃsāra. If there is a self, then others are known; The division of self and other brings hatred.

Through these connections, All faults arise. Self-love is certain— It never leaves what is "mine."

Without faults, self-love Would have no cause either. If one says craving has faults, What is the use of cultivating this?

If one says it can cut that— Without destroying this object, One cannot cut that craving. Cutting faults and virtues are linked—

Craving, hatred, and so on: By not seeing their object, Not through external reasoning. Craving is not craving for virtue—

It is seeing meaning as virtue. If its cause lacks nothing, How can its result be blocked? What fault is there in seeing craving?

If one says it is suffering's basis— Even so, it is not free from craving; Seeing "mine" is like seeing "I." If one says without "mine,"

"I" is not suffering's cause— That too is the same here. Thus both are faultless, So neither is free from craving.

If like a snake biting the limb, One cultivates suffering to cut it— One must destroy the sense of "mine"; Without that, this cannot be blocked.

By grasping at the senses As the basis of enjoyment, How can one's own awareness block it? How can one be free from craving?

Toward the body, hair, and so on, Though one develops renunciation, Craving for other things arises— This is seen by all.

They are bound by combination, Producing their own awareness. The binding remains as before, So though suffering is seen, one does not let go.

Though there is no combination and such, There is still benefit. Producing suffering, like a finger, It does not give rise to its own thought.

It is not entirely suffering— Like food with poison. Through craving for supreme pleasure, One turns from its opposite;

Through loving supreme pleasure, One temporarily gives up lesser pleasure. Without thought, through self-craving, One pursues whatever is obtained.

Like one who has not yet won a woman Yet lusts after animals. What is desired as "I"— How could one desire its cessation?

Experience and designation— The basis of virtues ceases. How is that an object of attachment? Attachment's nature is not like that.

Grasping self in all aspects Makes self-craving firm. That is the abiding Of the seed of the view of "mine."

Though diligent, turning with virtue, It blocks freedom from craving for "mine," And also blocks those faults. If one is free from craving for self,

Then there is no one who is free— As they too admit a self, Cultivating suffering is meaningless. Though one cultivates those sufferings,

Merely knowing them as suffering— That was already seen before; Even so, there is no freedom from craving. If by seeing their faults,

One momentarily blocks that mind, That is not freedom from craving— Like desiring another woman. There are distinctions of taking and leaving;

From one object, craving arises. Whenever it arises, It is the seed of all craving. Craving for an object without fault

Can also arise without fault— Beings are only that. Now, from what does one become free? Toward this and that, there are faults—

That is the same for me. Those faults do not free one from craving— Then from what does one become free? Seeing virtue brings attachment;

Seeing faults extinguishes it. Thus the senses are not like this— Because fools also see, And faults are also seen.

Though endowed with virtues, They are absent toward others, And toward the past and such, "What is mine" is also absent.

Therefore, the sense of "mine" Does not arise from seeing virtue. So seeing non-virtue Cannot cut it either.

Moreover, projecting false virtues— Through craving, one sees them too. If its cause is unharmed, How can that harm it?

Above, seeking others' good, There is the sense of arising and ceasing— Beings understand this: "I am different from the senses."

So it is not seeing one craving. The one who clings to self Is attached to the nature Of inner limbs.

If through present suffering One turns away—that is hatred of it, Not freedom from craving. At that time, One craves something else.

Hatred has suffering as its cause; It lasts only then. When it ceases, one again Relies on one's own nature.

When both taking and leaving are cut, Toward sword-cutting and perfume-anointing, One sees all as equal— That is called freedom from craving.

The scriptures speak of cultivating suffering With reference to the suffering of conditioning. Self and that arise from conditions— That is the basis of the non-self view.

The view of emptiness brings liberation; Other practices serve this. Therefore impermanence is taught as suffering, And through suffering, non-self.

Not free from craving, with attachment, Relying on all pursuits, Not liberated from afflictions and karma— That one is called a being in saṃsāra.

Not admitting the nature of "mine," Then there is no experiencer— The agent and enjoyer aspects— That self too should not exist.

Therefore, those seeking liberation Must uproot the beginningless View of the body, born from Seeds of similar causes.

The scriptures teach such things. Those who do not see the cause Say scripture can liberate— But that cannot bring joy.

Mantras, rituals of initiation, and such Do not prevent one's arising. Through oil-anointing, fire, and so on, I too should be liberated.

Because the heavy becomes light first, They cannot destroy sin; To make this heaviness absent— Without substance, sin is not heavy.

Wrong knowledge and what arises from it— Craving, thought, through their power— One is born in lower realms. So cutting them, one does not go there.

Because only from them does it arise, They alone can generate it. That thought is karma itself, So the cause of birth is not lost.

The realm and its basis— That arises from not seeing. When not seeing ceases, there is no realm. So it is action, not thought—

Because it turns with existence or non-existence. What generates and acts as the senses— Seeing and awareness have function, Not through other forces.

Since they have that, Why would they not go there? If they have no capacity, Then after initiation and such,

Through the force of thought, Taking, turning, distraction, And cessation should all be absent. If one says at that time

There is no awareness, so it does not arise— The continuum of defiled awareness: If their capacity is absent, Even living should have no capacity.

The antidote and one's own class— When one increases, the other decreases. The flow of sin has its own seed; Initiation cannot block it.

The permanent, without dependence, Contradicts arising in sequence. Doing and not-doing would be the same; Action would contradict itself.

Cause and effect would also be one. If they were different from that, Agent and experiencer would be lost. Function too would not hold.

Other faults like memory and experience— None of these pose any difficulty, Because there is no rememberer at all. Memory arises from experience.

Toward the Four Truths, one projects Permanence, pleasure, self, and mine— These sixteen aspects, Not real, yet one clings.

Toward their opposites, Understanding the true nature, Well-cultivated Right View Can destroy craving's following.

Karma and body, though present, Lacking one of three causes, Their arising does not occur— Like no seed, no sprout.

One does not cut karma and body, Because there is no antidote. Without capacity, craving Can still arise.

Though diligent to exhaust both, Exhausting karma is futile. Seeing various results, One infers karma's function—

There are many differences, So one painful practice Cannot exhaust all. Action brings them forth;

Results diminish, But not all the various kinds Of results to be experienced.

If through asceticism's force Functions are completely exhausted, Then for the defiled to be cut, All defilements should be cut.

If asceticism is different from the defiled, Or is itself affliction, Then it is karma's result— So it cannot make

Functions mixed and so on. Because it destroys the arising of desire, What can destroy all faults Can harm the karma that gives birth to them.

What is done—how is it lost? Faults do not arise from karma; Only with affliction can one act; Once blocked, one does not act.

Without wrong discrimination, Even pleasure does not arouse craving. Through the Protector, it is proven: True, stable, without remainder, distinct.

The Sugata has realized the meaning— Superior to outsiders, learners, And non-learners. For others' good, he diligently cultivates— Wisdom, practice, the Great Teacher.

Because he needs compassion, His purpose is others' good, Not abandoning what is done. Through compassion, he teaches well;

Through wisdom, he teaches truthfully. Teaching both and establishing them, He accomplishes his practice— Therefore he is a valid authority.

That matter praises the Great Teacher— Is it through his teaching alone That he is established as valid? He does not block inference—

He says whatever arises by nature Is a thing of destruction. Seeing through many aspects, He shows this practice.

There is no cause without arising— That is the basis of inference. He clarifies the universal reason for what is established And teaches it explicitly.