Chinese
因此，并非舍弃了以实有成立的方式存在的补特伽罗之我，就能获得解脱。因此，说“仅仅是错乱”，补特伽罗之我乃是错乱之基的颠倒显现，仅仅是那个灭尽才能获得解脱。因此，这部论典中也说：“因此错乱灭尽即解脱。”这样修改就容易理解了。此外，异生凡夫们也不是依赖于错乱与非错乱的混杂，而是仅仅依赖于错乱，因此，才说孩童异生凡夫们是依赖于仅仅错乱的众生。他们的近取五蕴是痛苦的持续，因为那是痛苦的田地，无论与什么事物相遇，都会变成纯粹的痛苦。而且，那是从无始轮回以来，无论何时都不会断绝地以持续的方式产生的，因此，对于五蕴的相续，才说“痛苦自性持续”，除此之外，并没有我和我所。仅仅依赖于错乱的异生凡夫们，怎么会不认识到是痛苦自性的蕴相续呢？如果认为这样，那么孩童们不认识补特伽罗无我的原因有两种：没有能够认识它的因的种子，以及串习颠倒之心的力量遮蔽了认识它。第一种是，以前没有现量证悟过补特伽罗无我的意义，或者即使不是那样，也应该是生起过对于无我的定解的明亮显现，凭借那个习气，才能生起证悟补特伽罗无我。但是，孩童异生凡夫们，没有那些因。第二种是，从无始轮回以来，串习执著补特伽罗我的分别念的习气具有力量，非常稳固。由于存在这两种原因，所以不能以理证悟补特伽罗无我。即使如此，孩童异生凡夫们，也仅仅是认识到行苦，而且也仅仅是认识到苦苦和变苦。
English
Therefore, it is not the case that liberation can be attained by abandoning a truly established self of a person that exists as a substance. Therefore, it is said that "merely mistaken," the self of a person is a mistaken appearance that is the basis of delusion, and it is said that liberation is attained merely by the exhaustion of that. Therefore, in this text as well, it would be easier to understand if it were amended to say, "Therefore, liberation is merely the exhaustion of error." Furthermore, ordinary beings do not rely on a mixture of delusion and non-delusion, but rely solely on delusion. Therefore, it is said that childish ordinary beings are beings who rely solely on delusion. Their five aggregates of appropriation are a continuous suffering, because they are the field of suffering, and whatever they encounter turns into pure suffering. Moreover, since it arises in a continuous manner from beginningless samsara without ever ceasing, it is said that the continuum of the five aggregates is "continuous in the nature of suffering," and there is no I or mine beyond that. How is it that ordinary beings who rely solely on delusion do not realize that the aggregates are merely a continuum of the nature of suffering? If you think so, there are two reasons why children do not realize the absence of a self of a person: there is no seed of a cause that can realize it, and the power of familiarizing oneself with the inverted mind that obscures the realization of it. The first is that one has not previously realized the meaning of the absence of a self of a person in manifest perception, or even if it is not so, there should be a clear appearance of a definite understanding of selflessness. By the power of that habit, the realization of the absence of a self of a person arises. However, childish ordinary beings do not have those causes. The second is that from beginningless samsara, the habit of continuously familiarizing oneself with the conceptual thought that grasps at the self of a person is powerful and very stable. Because there are these two causes, it is not reasonable to realize the absence of a self of a person. Even so, childish ordinary beings only recognize compositional suffering, and only recognize the suffering of suffering and the suffering of change.
Chinese
认为（五蕴）是能作痛苦的是不正确的。孩童们的五蕴之流，会产生各种各样的痛苦。如果在前世，五蕴之流造作了罪恶之业，那么其果报会在之后的某个阶段感受痛苦等等。但是，除了那些五蕴之流以外，作为业的作者的补特伽罗和感受痛苦的补特伽罗，以实有存在的方式存在是不正确的。例如，一条河流与白色混合，水变成白色，与红色混合后变成红色。但在白色和红色之中，除了河流的流动之外，没有其他使之变成白色或红色的事物。因此，暂时在未经观察和分析的情况下，将这五蕴之流称为法的自性，并认为它是存在的。之所以称其为法的自性，是因为“法”这个词有十种含义，但在这里，是按照事物具有“法”这个词的含义来解释的。仅仅存在这五蕴之流，除此之外，没有我、自我等等。到此为止，已经揭示了补特伽罗的无我。在进行观察和分析时，法的五蕴自性也是不存在的，这也揭示了法的无我。顺便提及，对作者的自我的驳斥是：当清楚地看到内外事物依赖于各种各样的因缘而产生，并以连续的方式进行时，有些人会认为，就像自在天一样，是由其他的作者所造作的，这是非常错误的。原因是什么呢？因为在世间，事物各自的因缘清楚可见且已成立，却看不到这些，反而认为存在不存在的作者，这简直是荒谬可笑。而且，在世间，黑暗的状态会阻碍清晰地看到色等事物，但绝不会成为看到不存在的事物的因。
English
It is incorrect to perceive (the five aggregates) as the cause of suffering. The stream of the five aggregates of children will give rise to various kinds of suffering. If in a previous life, the stream of the five aggregates has committed sinful deeds, then its result will be to experience suffering in a later state, and so on. However, apart from those streams of the five aggregates, the person who performs the action and the person who experiences suffering do not exist as substantially real. For example, when a stream of water mixes with white, the water becomes white, and when it mixes with red, it becomes red. But in the midst of white and red, there is nothing other than the stream of water that makes it white or red. Therefore, for the time being, without investigation or analysis, the stream of these five aggregates is referred to as the nature of dharma, and it is regarded as existent. The reason for calling it the nature of dharma is that the term "dharma" has ten meanings, but here, it is explained in terms of the meaning of "dharma" as things. Only this stream of the five aggregates exists, and there is no I, self, etc., beyond that. Up to this point, the absence of a self of the person has been shown. When observing and analyzing, the nature of the five aggregates of dharma is also non-existent, and the absence of a self of dharma is also shown. Incidentally, the refutation of the self of the agent is: When it is clearly seen that these external and internal things arise depending on various causes and conditions, and proceed in a continuous manner, some people think that, like Ishvara, it is created by another agent, which is very wrong. What is the reason? Because in the world, the individual causes and conditions of things are clearly seen and established, but instead of seeing these, they see an agent that does not exist, which is ridiculous. Moreover, in the world, the state of darkness hinders the clear seeing of things such as form, but it never becomes the cause of seeing things that do not exist.
Chinese
啊！你们所不了解的黑暗是，世间显而易见的近取因，种子以及水、肥料、温度、湿度、季节等助缘，从果实、幼苗到收获等显而易见的事实都看不到，更不用说显而易见的事实，甚至用比量也无法确定的作者存在，这实在是太可鄙了。这是出自《大乘经庄严论》的“真如品”中，关于成立人无我的理路的简略阐述，这是弥勒菩萨化身所著的论典的第一部分。第二部分出自“菩提分品”，其中关于成立人无我的理路的阐述分为略说和广说。首先是，以立宗的方式进行阐述，也就是，有情众生的身心聚合是五蕴的集合，即从色蕴到识蕴的五蕴。其中，身体是色蕴，具有眼等五根和色等五境的自性。心是八识，以及随之而来的苦乐舍三种感受的受蕴，以及执著“这是什么”的想蕴，以及贪嗔痴等心念的行蕴。因此，以身心的聚合，具有多种部分的自性的五蕴为对境，执著我为自我的就是人我执，它不要说在胜义谛中存在，甚至在世俗谛的事物中也不存在。这样，通过揭示人并非实有，从而消除增益边。那么，是否会认为这样的人我如同兔角一样根本不存在呢？虽然在胜义谛中确实如此，但仅仅是在世俗谛中，是分别念所假立的假有而已。这样说就避免了损减边。其理由是，虽然作者和感受异熟果的人并非实有，但作者和
English
Ah! The darkness that you do not understand is that, in this world, you do not see the obvious causes and conditions, such as the seed as the immediate cause, and the contributing conditions such as water, fertilizer, temperature, humidity, and seasons, which bring about the fruit from sprout to harvest. Not only do you not see the obvious, but you also see the existence of an agent that cannot be ascertained even by inference. This is extremely contemptible. This is a brief explanation of the reasoning for establishing the absence of self of a person, from the chapter on Suchness in the Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras. This is the first section of the treatise composed by the Regent Maitreya. The second section comes from the chapter on the Aspects Conducive to Enlightenment, in which the explanation of the reasoning for establishing the absence of self of a person is divided into brief and extensive explanations. The first is: it is explained in the manner of a proposition, that is, the aggregates of body and mind of sentient beings are a collection of the five aggregates, namely the five aggregates from form to consciousness. Among these, the body is the aggregate of form, having the nature of the five faculties such as the eye, and the five objects such as form. The mind is the eight consciousnesses, and the aggregate of feeling which arises as their retinue, the three feelings of pleasure, pain, and equanimity, and the aggregate of perception which grasps "this is what," and the mental states such as desire, hatred, and delusion are the aggregate of formations. Therefore, focusing on these five aggregates, which are the collection of body and mind, having the nature of many parts, the grasping of self as "I" is the grasping of self of a person, and it does not exist even as a conventional entity, let alone existing as an ultimate truth. Thus, by revealing that a person is not substantial, it eliminates the extreme of superimposition. Now, one might think, is such a self of a person completely non-existent like a rabbit's horn? Although it is indeed so in the ultimate truth, it is merely a nominal existence imputed by conceptual thought in the conventional truth. This explanation avoids the extreme of denial. The reason for this is that although the agent and the experiencer of karmic results are not substantially existent persons, the agent and the
Chinese
当成熟经历的蕴聚的相续，我执著为我的存在，那是作为业果所依的我的存在。仅仅承认这一点，就能避免对世俗业果的诽谤。因此，如果问人我存在还是不存在，不要一概而论，要分别回答：人我本体上不存在，但在名言上是存在的。应该这样说。第二，广说，有五个要点。第一，总的破斥人我实有，这是针对外道和自宗小乘十八部派中的五个部派而用这些理证来成立无我的。也就是说，人我是不存在的，因为没有任何量可以证成它的存在。也就是说，从眼识无法见到它开始，直到身识无法触及它为止，五根识的无分别识也无法证成它，而且意识也并非以明亮显现的方式来证成它。通过意识的分别来观察和分析，也没有通过推理识来确定“就是这样”的证成。因为无论是现量还是比量都无法证成它。对此，对方辩称：执著人我的分别念可以缘取人我。对此，对方也有各自的观点。这五个部派认为，世尊所说的“见法”是指人我实有。他们会这样说，并认为经文的意思是说人我是见法。但经文的意思并非如此，见法是指这五蕴本身，而且过去的蕴和未来的蕴并非现量所见的对境。因此，现在五蕴的集合被称为见法，而不是说人我是见法。而且，经文中说“安立”也是说，依靠见法的蕴，而虚妄地执著我为我，因此否定了人我实有。外道们
English
When the continuum of aggregates that have been matured and experienced is considered to be the self, it is the self that serves as the basis for karmic results. By merely acknowledging this much, one avoids denigrating the conventional system of karmic results. Therefore, if asked whether the self of a person exists or not, one should not answer in a single way, but should answer by distinguishing: the self of a person does not exist substantially, but it does exist nominally. That is what should be said. Secondly, the extensive explanation has five points. First, the general refutation of the substantial existence of the self of a person is directed towards the outsiders, the heretics, and among the eighteen schools of the Hearers within our own tradition, there are about five schools, and it is for these that these reasonings establish the absence of a self. That is, the self of a person does not exist, because no valid cognition can apprehend its existence. That is, from the fact that it is not seen by the eye consciousness, up to the fact that it is not touched by the body consciousness, the five sense consciousnesses, even the non-conceptual consciousnesses, do not apprehend it, and also the mind consciousness does not apprehend it in the manner of a clear appearance. Moreover, through the examination and analysis by the conceptual mind, there is no apprehension by inferential cognition that says, "It is like this." Because neither direct perception nor inference apprehends it. To this, the proponent says: The conceptual thought that grasps the self of a person apprehends the object, the self of a person. To this, the proponent also has their own individual positions. These five schools assert that the Blessed One said that the 'seen dharma' refers to the substantially existent self of a person. They will say this, and claim that the meaning of the scripture is that the self of a person is explained as the seen dharma. But the meaning of that scripture is not like that; the seen dharma is these five aggregates themselves, and the past aggregates and the future aggregates are not objects of direct perception. Therefore, this collection of the five present aggregates is what is called the seen dharma, and it is not that the self of a person is explained as the seen dharma. Moreover, the term 'imputation' also explains that by relying on the aggregates of the seen dharma, one falsely imputes the self as the self, and therefore it negates the substantial existence of the self of a person. The outsiders