Chinese
因为如果能使坏灭的事物恒常存在，就不会出现这种情况，即令人愉悦的境完全坏灭，而出现令人不悦的景象。而且，如果存在一个有情之我，他想要令人愉悦的境，不想要令人不悦的境，但令人愉悦的境刹那坏灭，而生起令人不悦的境刹那，这也证明了并非由他所主宰。此外，如果不说明有情之我的作用和特征是这样的，就不应该说有情之我是实有，如果它是实有，就必须说明它的作用是这样的，特征是这样的，必须成立作用和特征。对于自宗说有情之我是实有的人，可以施加这个推论，但对于外道，由于他们各自承认有情之我的特征，即使施加这个推论也没有意义。例如，数论派和胜论派等认为有情之我是能知的，并且认为它具有颜色和形状，有些理性主义者认为有情之我是物质，耆那教徒认为有情之我的大小与身体相等，身体大则我大，身体小则我小，有些则认为有情之我是男性生殖器林伽的形状，有些则认为有情之我只有微尘的大小，所有人都共同认为它是常、一、自在的。然而，耆那教徒则承认，我是自性常，而变化无常。因为他们各自承认我的特征。此外，对于声闻部你们来说，如果承认有情之我是实有，那么就会被三种圆满菩提所损害，即甚深菩提、不共菩提和出世间菩提。其中，第一种是，由于在远离一切戏论中证得菩提，所以安立为甚深菩提，如果真的存在这样一个实有、真实成立的有情之我，那么世尊也应该证悟它，
English
Because if one could make decaying things remain constant, this would not happen: the pleasant realm itself would be completely destroyed, and unpleasant appearances would arise. Moreover, if there were a self of a person who desired pleasant realms and did not desire unpleasant ones, but the moment of a pleasant realm decayed and the moment of an unpleasant realm arose, this would also prove that it is not dominated by him. Furthermore, if one does not state that the function and characteristics of the self of a person are like this, one should not say that the self of a person is substantial. If it were substantial, one would have to establish its function and characteristics, saying that its function is like this and its characteristics are like this. This inference is applied to those of our own school who say that the self of a person is substantial, but for external heretics, since they each acknowledge the characteristics of the self of a person separately, even if this inference is applied, it becomes meaningless. For example, the Samkhyas and Vaisheshikas, etc., consider the self of a person to be knowing, and they consider it to have the form of color and shape. Some rationalists consider the self of a person to be material. The Jains consider the self of a person to be equal in size to the body; if the body is large, the self is also large; if the body is small, the self is also small. Some consider the self of a person to exist in the form of a male phallus (linga). Some consider the self of a person to be only the size of an atom. All commonly consider it to be permanent, one, and independent. However, the Jains acknowledge that the self is permanent in nature and impermanent in change. Because they each acknowledge the characteristics of the self separately. Furthermore, for you, the Shravaka schools, if you acknowledge that the self of a person is substantial, then you will be harmed by the three perfect enlightenments: profound enlightenment, uncommon enlightenment, and transcendent enlightenment. Among these, the first is that since enlightenment is attained in being free from all elaboration, it is established as profound enlightenment. If there really were such a substantial, truly established self of a person, then the Bhagavan should also realize it,
Chinese
如果这样理解，那是因为它是有所增益的，与甚深地证悟相违背。第二，如果人我实体存在被认为是真实的，那么这也是外道们所认同的，因此与他人是共同的，与非共同的证悟相违背。第三，因为我被所有世间人认为是存在的，所以与超越世间的证悟相违背。这里所说的圆满菩提，是指对所有知识的对象，没有遗漏地完全、圆满地证悟或知晓，因此才这样说。例如，就像一个瓶子，仅仅了解它的外部形状，却不了解它里面有什么东西，是谁在什么时候制造的，有多少微尘，最终什么时候会坏灭等等，如果没有了解所有这些方面，就不是圆满的证悟。而佛陀则是以这种方式了解一切知识的对象。而且，这不是通过推理来了解，而是通过现量来了解，因此称为一切法现前圆满证悟。正如这部经文《对圆满菩提三者造成损害》的字面意思所说，对所损害的圆满菩提三者，以能损害的人我造成损害，这不是当时的含义，因为它不能损害它。因此，必须解释为能损害的圆满菩提三种对所损害的人我造成损害。经文的措辞之所以如此，是因为第三格是施事格，第二格是宾格，这是语法上的原因。第三，对它本身进行分析和反驳，分为总说和广说。首先是：如果作为见者等的人我实体存在，那么是有作用的还是没有作用的？如果是前者，是无因自生的还是有因缘的？如果是前者，是无因自生的作用，那是不合理的，因为有下面要讲的三种过失，所以见和听等不是人我的自生作用。如果是后者，是其他的作用还是自己的作用？前者是不合理的，因为其他的……
English
If it is understood in this way, it is contradictory to profound enlightenment because it is elaborate. Secondly, if the self of a person is established as truly existing, then this is also what the non-Buddhists desire, so it is common with others, and it is contradictory to enlightenment that is not common. Thirdly, since the self is held to exist by all worldly people, it is contradictory to enlightenment that transcends the world. Here, the term 'perfect enlightenment' means to fully and completely realize or know all aspects of knowable objects without exception, hence the term. For example, if one only understands the external shape of a vase, but does not know what is inside it, who made it at what time, how many particles it contains, and when it will eventually decay, then one has not fully understood it. However, the Buddha understands all knowable objects in this way. Moreover, it is not understood through reasoning based on analysis, but through direct perception. Therefore, it is called the perfect enlightenment of all phenomena. According to the literal meaning of this text, 'Harmful to the Three Perfect Enlightenments,' the harm caused by the self of a person to the three perfect enlightenments that are harmed is not the meaning of the occasion, because it cannot harm it. Therefore, it must be explained that the three aspects of perfect enlightenment that cause harm harm the self of a person that is harmed. The reason why the wording of the text is like this is because the third case is the agent case, and the second case is the object case, which is due to grammatical reasons. Thirdly, analyzing and refuting it itself is divided into summary and detailed explanation. The first is: if the self of a person, such as the seer, exists as a substance, then is it with action or without action? If it is the former, is it causeless and spontaneous, or is it caused by conditions? If it is the former, if it is a causeless and spontaneous action, then it is unreasonable, because there are three faults that will be explained below, so seeing and hearing, etc., are not the spontaneous actions of the self of a person. If it is the latter, is it the action of another or the action of oneself? The former is unreasonable, because of others...
Chinese
如果是因缘所生，那么与作为补特伽罗之我的因缘相违背。例如，眼睛看到事物是眼睛的作用，那么与作为补特伽罗之我来做相违背，因为是眼睛的作用。像这样，前一种观点也不认可。如果是无因而生的作用，那是不合理的，因为会产生下面将要讲到的三种过失。如果是我的作用，那也是不合理的，作用是那个人的因缘，但对于境的观看等作用是没有的。用“又”这个词，对于这个，又会产生下面要讲的三种过失。第二，如果像没有作用一样，那么会变成不是观看者等，因为没有观看等作用。第二，广说，首先破斥作用是自生的观点：从眼睛观看事物的作用开始，到解脱之间的作用，说是自生是不可以的。其中的理由是，自生是常法，而常法的观看等作用是相违背的。因为作用自生不是那些作用的作者，并且作用自生常法与观看等无常法相违背。因为作者常法所做的法必须是常住的，但是，第一刹那观看事物，第二刹那听声音等，是看到无常的缘故。如果从观看事物到解脱之间的作用是常法，那么十个作用会同时产生，但有时会间断地看到。破斥承许我是作者的观点：对于观看等那些，承许是我之因是不可以的。其中的理由是，我是常住的来做呢？还是我是坏灭的来做呢？还是这二者之外的第三者来做呢？如果像第一种情况，那么，作为补特伽罗之我常住，它不是观看事物的作者，如果是，那么那个作用永远不会消失，但是在观看事物之前，那个作用是没有的，而作为补特伽罗之我是存在的缘故。例如，在睡眠的时候，作为补特伽罗之我是存在的，但是没有观看事物的作用，醒来的时候，眼睛看到事物的时候，那个作
English
If it is caused by conditions, then it contradicts the condition of the self as a person. For example, if seeing forms with the eyes is the function of the eyes, then it contradicts the self as a person doing it, because it is the function of the eyes. Such a view is not accepted in the former position either. If the action is causeless and spontaneous, it is unreasonable, because three faults, which will be explained below, will occur. If it is the action of the self, that is also unreasonable, because the action is conditioned by that person, but there is no action such as looking at the object. The word "also" indicates that three faults, which will be explained below, will occur again. Secondly, if it is like having no action, then it will become not a seer, etc., because there is no action of seeing, etc. Secondly, the detailed explanation: First, refuting the view that action is self-arisen: From the action of the eyes seeing forms to the action until liberation, it is not permissible to say that it is self-arisen. The reason for this is that self-arisen is permanent, and the action of seeing, etc., of a permanent thing is contradictory. Because the self-arisen action is not the agent of those actions, and the self-arisen permanent action contradicts the impermanent actions such as seeing. Because the dharma done by the permanent agent must be permanent, but seeing forms in the first moment and hearing sounds in the second moment, etc., are seen as impermanent. If the action from seeing forms to liberation is permanent, then all ten actions would occur simultaneously, but sometimes they are seen intermittently. Refuting the acceptance of the self as the agent: It is not permissible to accept that seeing, etc., are caused by the self. The reason for this is, does the abiding self do it? Or does the disintegrating self do it? Or does a third thing other than these two do it? If it is like the first case, then the self as a person, which is permanent, is not the agent of seeing forms, because if it were, then that action would never cease, but before seeing forms, that action does not exist, and the self as a person exists. For example, when one is asleep, the self as a person exists, but there is no action of seeing forms, and when one wakes up, when the eyes see forms, that ac
Chinese
如同存在一般。坏灭的我，也不应成为观看者等的作者，因为坏灭者虽然能做事，但如果坏灭者是造作者的因缘，那么人的我就变成无常了。坏灭已尽者，因为是无实有，所以成为作者是相违的。如第三种情况，坏灭和存在是二者，第三种情况也不应成为观看者等的作者，因为有二者的过失。不是二者的蕴三者也不行，因为没有那样的事物。第五个论点是说与经相违，如此一来，那些认为人我是实有的自宗，又说经中说：诸比丘，有承担重担的人，也有放下重担的人。又说有八种人，所以说人我是实有是不合理的，因为从同一部经中引申出的第五品中，说了五种我见之过患。因此，很明显，这些经部的意图不是显示我实有，它们的意图是完全烦恼的状态和完全清净的状态各自的界限差别，以及新进入因和果，和安住于进入的相续的差别，也是以五蕴的状态安立为人的方式来容易表达地显示。也就是在苦和集谛二者中行持的蕴相续的状态安立为人，那是完全烦恼的状态，在灭和道谛二者中安住的五蕴相续上安立的人是完全清净的状态。像这样，如果用人的名称来分别观察这两种状态，就容易表达和容易理解。例如，必须说圣者舍利子宣说了法，实际上是他的色、受、想、行、识，也就是五蕴，以及内摄色蕴中，眼、耳、鼻、舌等众多聚集在一起宣说了法，但如果必须说像那样的事物宣说了法，那就不容易表达，也不美观。
English
It is as if it exists. The destroyed self should not be the agent of the viewer, etc., because although the destroyed can do things, if the destroyed is the cause of the doer, then the self of the person becomes impermanent. The completely destroyed, because it is unreal, is contradictory to being an agent. As in the third case, destruction and existence are two, and the third case should not be the agent of the viewer, etc., because there are faults of both. The three aggregates that are not two are also not possible, because there is no such thing. The fifth point is said to contradict the scriptures. In this way, those of our own school who believe that the self of a person is substantial also say that the sutra says: "Monks, there are people who bear burdens, and there are also people who lay down burdens." Moreover, because it is said that there are eight kinds of people, it is unreasonable to say that the self of a person is substantial, because in the fifth chapter derived from the same sutra, it is said that there are five kinds of faults of the view of self. Therefore, it is clear that the intention of these sutras is not to show that the self is substantial, and their intention is the difference between the boundaries of the completely afflicted state and the completely purified state, and the difference between newly entering cause and effect, and the continuity of abiding in entering, is also shown in a way that is easy to express by establishing the state of the five aggregates as a person. That is, the state of the aggregate continuum that practices in the two truths of suffering and origin is established as a person, which is the state of complete affliction, and the person established on the continuum of the five aggregates that abides in the two truths of cessation and path is the state of complete purification. In this way, if we use the name of a person to separately observe these two states, it is easy to express and easy to understand. For example, it must be said that the noble Shariputra taught the Dharma, but in reality, it is his form, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness, that is, the five aggregates, and also the eye, ear, nose, tongue, etc., which are included in the form aggregate, that taught the Dharma, but if it must be said that such a thing taught the Dharma, then it is not easy to express and not beautiful.