Chinese
是也。何以故？以于上，从自他及二者，生及无因，共同遮止之故。未说此等生起，视之非有也。何以故？以从自与他及二者生，不待因，非有故，诸物自性离。以何如云聚，稠密愚昧于世间，有者，是故诸境显现为颠倒。如眩翳力故，有者发丝二月等，孔雀翎及蜂等，执为颠倒者。如是愚昧过失力故，不智者，于有为视之，以种种智慧而能了知。若依愚昧而生业，无愚昧则彼，不生，说为唯不智者定能了知。贤善慧日，遍除稠密黑暗之，智者等乃通达空性而得解脱。若诸物于彼性中无，则名言中亦如石女儿。彼等无性即成，是故彼等自性乃有。何者眩翳等境转变，发丝等彼等不生故，且于彼等自身而应诘难，外则无明眩翳相连属也。若如梦境乾闼婆城等，阳焰之水及幻师影像等，见无生，虽同非有性，于汝如何成彼，不应理。彼性中此如何虽无生，如石女儿，以何故世间，非成所见之境，非也。是故此说不定也。石女儿于自性中，生彼性中无，于世间亦，非有，如是此等诸物之体性，自性于世间彼性中不生。是故如是导师说，诸法皆，从初寂灭，离生，自性，圆满涅槃，是故恒常生非有。瓶等此等彼性中无，如世间极著名而有，如是诸事物生起故，与石女儿同等之过，不转成。何以故？以因不
English
It is so. Why? Because, as mentioned above, from self, other, and both, birth and causelessness are commonly prohibited. These unmentioned occurrences are not seen as existent. Why? Because arising from self, other, and both, not relying on causes, is nonexistent, therefore all things are devoid of inherent nature. Because of what, like a cloud mass, dense ignorance in the world, exists, therefore all realms appear as inverted. Just as by the power of dizziness, some perceive hair-like streaks, two moons, peacock feathers, and bees, etc., as inverted. Likewise, due to the power of the fault of ignorance, the unwise, regarding conditioned things, understand them through various kinds of intelligence. If actions arise dependent on ignorance, and without ignorance, they do not arise, only the unwise are certain to understand this. The sun of excellent wisdom, completely dispelling dense darkness, the wise ones realize emptiness and attain liberation. If things do not exist in that very nature, then even in name, like a barren woman's child. Their non-existence is established, therefore their nature is existent. Those whose realms are transformed by dizziness, etc., since hair-like streaks, etc., are unborn, one should first question them themselves, and then connect ignorance with dizziness. If, like dream cities of gandharvas, mirage water, and illusory images, etc., one sees the unborn, although similar in non-existence, how can it be so for you, it is unreasonable. How can this be unborn in that very nature, like a barren woman's child, because it does not become an object of sight in the world? Therefore, this statement is uncertain. A barren woman's child, in its own nature, does not exist in that very birth, nor in the world. Likewise, the essence of all these things, by its own nature, does not arise in that very world. Therefore, the teacher thus taught that all phenomena are, from the beginning, peaceful, free from birth, by nature, completely in nirvana, therefore there is no constant birth. These pots, etc., do not exist in that very nature, just as they are famously known to exist in the world. Likewise, since all things arise, the fault of being equal to a barren woman's child does not occur. Why? Because the cause does not
Chinese
自在和遍入天，以及自性等和自他二者，事物并非从中产生，因此依靠而生。因为事物依靠而产生，这些分别念无法分析。因此，依缘起之理，能断除一切恶见之网。分别念若有事物则会产生，事物如何不存在已经完全分析完毕。没有事物，这些分别念就不会产生，例如没有木柴就没有火一样。各自的凡夫被分别念束缚，不分别的瑜伽士则会解脱，分别念颠倒错乱的，智者说是辨别的果实。因为论典执着于分析辩论，所以没有造作解脱，因此宣说了它。如果详细解释它，摧毁其他宗派也没有过失。执着自己的观点，以及对其他观点愤怒，都是分别念。因此，断除贪欲和嗔恨，辨别者会迅速解脱。所有烦恼过患都从坏聚见，由见产生，智慧见到之后，瑜伽士将我执作为对境而断除。常恒的享受者，非作者的我，无功德无作用，外道们如此臆测。依靠这些细微的差别，外道们的宗派各不相同。如同石女之子，因为远离出生，如此的我并不存在，这也不应是存在的所依，也不应许这是世俗谛。因为论典与论典之间的差别，外道们所宣说的所有，都被自宗未生之理所破斥，因此那些差别都不存在。因此，没有蕴以外的我，因为除了蕴之外，执持它的不存在。世间的我执，也不应是心识的所依，因为非为心识也是我见之故。那些众生在轮回中漂泊了很久，他们也没有见到未生的常我，但在我执中却能见到，因此蕴以外没有其他的我。没有成立蕴以外的我
English
Things do not arise from causes such as Isvara and Vishnu, or from both self and other. Therefore, they arise dependently. Since things arise dependently, these discriminations cannot be analyzed. Therefore, this reasoning of dependent arising cuts through all nets of wrong views. Discriminations arise if there are things, but how things do not exist has already been completely analyzed. Without things, these discriminations do not arise, just as there is no fire without firewood. Ordinary individuals are bound by discriminations, while non-discriminating yogis are liberated. Whatever discriminations are reversed, the wise say is the fruit of discernment. Because treatises are attached to analysis and debate, liberation is not achieved, therefore it is taught. If it is explained in detail, there is no fault in destroying other schools. Attachment to one's own view, and anger towards other views, are both discriminations. Therefore, by eliminating desire and anger, the discerning one will quickly be liberated. All afflictive faults arise entirely from the view of the aggregates, and having seen this with wisdom, the yogi prevents the self by taking self-grasping as its object. The self that is an enjoyer, permanent, and not an agent, without qualities or actions, is conceived by the non-Buddhists. Based on these slight differences, the tenets of the non-Buddhists become distinct. Like the child of a barren woman, since it is devoid of birth, such a self does not exist, and it is not reasonable for this to be a basis of existence, nor is it asserted to exist conventionally. Because of the difference between treatises and treatises, everything that the non-Buddhists teach is refuted by the reason of unborn in one's own system, therefore none of those differences exist. Therefore, there is no self other than the aggregates, because apart from the aggregates, the grasping of it is not established. The world's self-grasping is also not accepted as the basis of mind, because even what is not mind is a view of self. Those sentient beings who have wandered in samsara for many eons have not seen this unborn permanent self, but they do see engagement in self-grasping, therefore there is no self other than the aggregates. There is no establishment of a self other than the aggregates.
Tibetan
་ཕྱིར། །བདག་ལྟའི་དམིགས་པ་ཕུང་པོ་ཁོ་ནའོ། །ཁ་ཅིག་བདག་ལྟའི་རྟེན་དུ་ཕུང་པོ་ནི། །ལྔ་ཆར་ཡང་འདོད་ཁ་ཅིག་སེམས་གཅིག་འདོད། །གལ་ཏེ་ཕུང་པོ་བདག་ན་དེ་ཕྱིར་དེ། །མང་བས་བདག་དེ་དག་ཀྱང་མང་བར་འགྱུར། །བདག་ནི་རྫས་སུ་འགྱུར་ཞིང་དེར་ལྟ་བ། །རྫས་ལ་འཇུག་པས་ཕྱིན་ཅི་ལོག་མི་འགྱུར། །མྱ་ངན་འདས་ཚེ་ངེས་པར་བདག་ཆད་འགྱུར། །མྱ་ངན་འདས་སྔོན་སྐད་ཅིག་དག་ལ་ནི། །སྐྱེ་འཇིག་བྱེད་པོ་མེད་པས་དེ་འབྲས་མེད། །གཞན་གྱིས་བསགས་ལ་གཞན་གྱིས་ཟ་བར་འགྱུར། །དེ་ཉིད་དུ་རྒྱུད་ཡོད་ན་སྐྱོན་མེད་ན། །སྔར་རྣམ་དཔྱད་ཚེ་རྒྱུད་ལ་ཉེས་བཤད་ཟིན། །དེ་ཕྱིར་ཕུང་པོ་དང་སེམས་བདག་མི་རིགས། །འཇིག་རྟེན་མཐའ་ལྡན་ལ་སོགས་མེད་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་རྣལ་འབྱོར་བདག་མེད་མཐོང་བ་ལ། །དེ་ཚེ་ངེས་པར་དངོས་རྣམས་མེད་པར་འགྱུར། །རྟག་བདག་སྤངས་ན་དེ་ཚེ་དེ་ཡི་ཕྱིར། །ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་སེམས་སམ་ཕུང་པོ་བདག་མི་འགྱུར། །ཁྱོད་ཀྱི་རྣལ་འབྱོར་བདག་མེད་མཐོང་བ་ཡིས། །གཟུགས་སོགས་དེ་ཉིད་རྟོགས་པར་མི་འགྱུར་ཞིང༌། །གཟུགས་ལ་དམིགས་ནས་འཇུག་ཕྱིར་འདོད་ཆགས་སོགས། །སྐྱེ་འགྱུར་དེ་ཡི་ངོ་བོ་རྟོགས་མེད་ཕྱིར། །གང་ཕྱིར་སྟོན་པས་ཕུང་པོ་བདག་གོ་ཞེས། །གསུངས་པ་དེ་ཕྱིར་ཕུང་པོ་བདག་འདོད་ན། །དེ་ནི་ཕུང་ལས་གཞན་བདག་འགོག་པ་སྟེ། །གཟུགས་བདག་མིན་སོགས་མདོ་གཞན་གསུངས་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གང་ཕྱིར་གཟུགས་ཚོར་བདག་མིན་པ་འདུ་ཤེས་ཀྱང༌། །མ་ཡིན་འདུ་བྱེད་རྣམས་མིན་རྣམ་ཤེས་ཀྱང༌། །མིན་པར་མདོ་གཞན་ལས་གསུངས་དེ་ཡི་ཕྱིར། །མདོར་བསྟན་ཕུང་པོ་བདག་ཅེས་བཞེད་མ་ཡིན། །ཕུང་པོ་བདག་ཅེས་བརྗོད་ཚེ་ཕུང་རྣམས་ཀྱི། །ཚོགས་པ་ཡིན་གྱི་ཕུང་པོའི་ངོ་བོ་མིན། །མགོན་མིན་འདུལ་བའམ་དབང་པོ་ཉིད་ཀྱང་མིན། །དེ་མེད་ཕྱིར་དེ་ཚོགས་པ་མ་ཡིན་ནོ། །དེ་ཚེ་དེ་ཡི་ཡན་ལག་ཚོགས་གནས་རྣམས། །ཤིང་རྟ་ཉིད་འགྱུར་ཤིང་རྟ་དང་བདག་མཚུངས། །མདོ་ལས་ཕུང་པོ་བརྟེན་ནས་ཡིན་གསུངས་པ། །དེ་ཕྱིར་ཕུང་པོ་འདུས་ཙམ་བདག་མ་ཡིན།། དབྱིབས་ཤེ་ན་དེ་གཟུགས་ཅན་ལ་ཡོད་ཕྱིར། །ཁྱོད་ལ་དེ་དག་ཉིད་བདག་ཅེས་འགྱུར་གྱི། །སེམས་སོགས་ཚོགས་ནི་བདག་ཉིད་འགྱུར་མིན་ཏེ། །གང་ཕྱིར་དེ་དག་ལ་དབྱིབས་ཡོད་མ་ཡིན། །ལེན་པོ་རང་ཉེར་ལེན་གཅིག་རིགས་དངོས་མིན། །དེ་ལྟ་ན་ལས་བྱེད་པོ་གཅིག་ཉིད་འགྱུར། །བྱེད་པོ་མེད་ལས་ཡོད་སྙམ་བློ་ཡིན་ན། །མ་ཡིན་གང་ཕྱིར་བྱེད་པོ་མེད་ལས་མེད། །གང་ཕྱིར་ཐུབ་པས་བདག་དེ་ས་ཆུ་མེ། །རླུང་དང་རྣམ་ཤེ
Chinese
因此，我见之对境唯是蕴。有些认为蕴是作为我见之所依，五蕴全部都可，有些则认为唯是一心。如果蕴是我，那么因此，由于多之故，彼等我也将变成多。我变成实物，并且在那里见，以实物而趣入，故不变成颠倒。涅槃之时，定然我会断灭。涅槃之前，刹那等之上，由于没有生灭之作者，故彼无果。他人所积，他人将食。如果彼处有相续，则无过失，先前辨析之时，已说过相续之过失。因此，蕴和心不应理为我，因为没有具有世间边际等。你的瑜伽见到无我，彼时定然诸事物变成无有。如果舍弃常我，彼时因此，你的心或蕴不成我。你的瑜伽见到无我，不能如实了知色等，因为缘于色而趣入，故贪等将生，因为未了知彼之自性。因为导师说蕴是我，因此如果认为蕴是我，那么这是遮止蕴之外的我，因为其他经中说色非我等。因为色受非我，想亦非，行亦非，识亦非，因为其他经中说非，因此，并非是经中所示蕴是我。说蕴是我之时，是蕴之集合，而非蕴之自性。非是怙主，非是调伏，亦非是根。因为无彼，故彼非集合。彼时彼之支分集合处等，将变成车，车和我相同。经中说蕴是所依而有，因此，蕴之聚合并非我。 如果说是形状，因为彼在有色者上存在，对你来说，彼等本身将变成我，心等集合并非是我，因为彼等没有形状。能取者、自近取者、一类事物非实物。若是那样，则作业者将成唯一。如果认为是无作者而有业，则非也，因为无作者则无业。因为能仁说，彼我即是地水火，风和识。
English
Therefore, the object of the view of self is only the aggregates. Some consider the aggregates as the basis for the view of self, all five aggregates are acceptable, while others consider only one mind. If the aggregates are the self, then because of that, due to being many, those selves will also become many. The self becomes a substance, and seeing it there, entering into it as a substance, it does not become inverted. At the time of Nirvana, surely I will be annihilated. Before Nirvana, on moments and so on, since there is no creator of arising and ceasing, therefore it is fruitless. Others accumulate, and others will eat. If there is a continuum there, then there is no fault, but in the previous analysis, the faults of the continuum have already been stated. Therefore, aggregates and mind are not reasonable as self, because there are no such things as having the limits of the world. Your yoga sees no-self, at that time certainly all things become non-existent. If you abandon the permanent self, then because of that, your mind or aggregates will not become the self. Your yoga sees no-self, and cannot truly realize form and so on, because it is attached to form and enters into it, therefore attachment and so on will arise, because the nature of that is not realized. Because the Teacher said that the aggregates are the self, therefore if you think that the aggregates are the self, then this is to prevent the self other than the aggregates, because other sutras say that form is not the self and so on. Because form, feeling are not the self, perception is also not, formations are also not, consciousness is also not, because other sutras say that they are not, therefore, it is not the intention of the sutra to show that the aggregates are the self. When it is said that the aggregates are the self, it is the collection of the aggregates, not the nature of the aggregates. It is not a protector, not a tamer, nor is it a sense faculty. Because there is no that, therefore it is not a collection. At that time, its limbs, collection places, etc., will become a chariot, the chariot and the self are the same. The sutra says that the aggregates are dependent and exist, therefore, the mere accumulation of aggregates is not the self. If it is said to be shape, because it exists in those with form, for you, those themselves will become the self, the collection of mind and so on is not the self, because they do not have shape. The taker, the self-near taker, one kind of thing is not a real thing. If that is the case, then the agent will become one. If you think that there is action without an agent, then it is not so, because without an agent there is no action. Because the capable one said that the self is earth, water, fire, wind, and consciousness.