English
Thinking in the mind that it is unreasonable to say it is a chariot. The so-called dependent designation is the nature of designating a chariot based on the limbs of the chariot. As mentioned earlier, it is for the sake of easily entering into that very reality. As such, if one examines through the sevenfold reasoning, the self is unobtainable and has become selfless, but relying on the aggregates, etc., there is the going of the self, the knowing of the self, and this is mine, etc. In order not to abandon worldly speech, it is acceptable to consider the self as the taker. Therefore, it is said to be "worldly convention," otherwise, worldly speech will be refuted. In order to clarify this meaning by the commentary, it is said, "As relying on spokes, etc., there is a chariot," etc. Just as one follows the world and acknowledges the self, similarly, the designation of names such as action and agent is also to avoid abandoning worldly speech, so one should follow the world and acknowledge it. In order to show this meaning, it is said, "As the spokes, etc., are of the chariot," etc. The establishment of this taker and taker is that the spokes, etc., and the aggregates, etc., are the taker, and the chariot and the self, etc., are the taker, which is their establishment. The establishment of action and agent is that the aggregates, etc., are what I should take, so the aggregates, etc., are established as action, and the aggregates, etc., are taken by me, so I am established as the taker. One should acknowledge it like a chariot, that is, one should acknowledge that it exists only as a designation. The taker is the aggregates, etc. This is the self. Thus, in order to show the merit of dependent designation, it is said, "Dependent designation," etc. The so-called "not the basis of discriminations such as permanence and impermanence," that is, if there is a real thing, it will become permanent and impermanent, as mentioned earlier.
Chinese
以理智而言，如果我不是实有，我如何能成为关于我恒常与否等概念的依据呢？所谓恒常与无常等概念，应包括同一与他异。其中，生起后不坏灭的是恒常，生起后坏灭的是无常。所谓无有同一与他异，是因为蕴等与我既非他体也非一体，故无我。为了阐释非恒常与无常等之理由，故说“非实有”等，意为我非实有。为了通过注释来阐释此义，故说“依赖于蕴”等。其中，如果我非恒常，则与经教相违，应如是连贯，即与经教《中观根本慧论》相违。为了阐释此义，故说“取蕴”等。所谓取蕴五者，乃是刹那生灭之法，而我则不能被说成与蕴是同一、他异、恒常或无常，否则将产生过失。例如，如果我是恒常，则会陷入恒常论；如果我是无常，则会堕入断灭论。恒常与断灭二者皆是重大谬误，故不可接受。因此，取蕴五者本身不应被认为是“我”。此外，取蕴如何能成为取者？如此一来，瓶子与陶匠也将成为一体。同样，“从无生”等之意为，如果我先前未生，后来才生，则我将成为所造之物。然而，我们并不认为我是所造之物，因为这将导致无常。由于没有与我相异的能造作者来造我，因此承认我是所造之物，将导致轮回有始，并且先前造作者将出现，但我们并不如此认为。因此，我不是所造之物。此外，生起将变成无因。
English
According to reason, if I am not real, how can I be the basis for concepts such as whether I am permanent or not? The so-called concepts of permanence and impermanence should include the collection of sameness and otherness. Among them, what arises and does not perish is permanent, and what arises and perishes is impermanent. The so-called absence of sameness and otherness is because the aggregates and so on are neither different from nor the same as the self, hence there is no self. In order to explain the reasons for not being permanent and impermanent, it is said that "not real," etc., meaning that I am not real. In order to explain this meaning through commentary, it is said that "relying on the aggregates," etc. Among them, if I am not permanent, then it will contradict the scriptures, and it should be connected in this way, that is, it will contradict the scriptures, the Root Wisdom of the Middle Way. In order to explain this meaning, it is said that "appropriation aggregates," etc. The so-called five appropriation aggregates are phenomena that arise and cease in an instant, but I cannot be said to be the same as, different from, permanent, or impermanent from the aggregates, otherwise there will be faults. For example, if I am permanent, I will fall into the theory of permanence; if I am impermanent, I will fall into the theory of annihilation. Both permanence and annihilation are major errors, so they cannot be accepted. Therefore, the five appropriation aggregates themselves should not be considered "I." Furthermore, how can appropriation aggregates become the appropriator? In this way, the pot and the potter will also become one. Similarly, the meaning of "arising from nothing" etc. is that if I was not born before, and then I am born later, then I will become something created. However, we do not think that I am something created, because this will lead to impermanence. Since there is no creator different from me to create me, admitting that I am something created will lead to the beginning of samsara, and the previous creator will appear, but we do not think so. Therefore, I am not something created. Furthermore, arising will become causeless.
Chinese
འགྱུར། །名为，如果先前没有的自性产生，就会变成从无因而生。因为先前没有自性，没有作者，所以会变成无因。这说明了经论中自性并非无常。如果承认自性是无常的所依，那么就与经论相违背。因此，之所以不希望成为无常，所以说这也不应理成为无常，这是总结。为了从经论的来源方面说明不应理，所以说了“如同”等。如是说，出自《中观根本慧论》。过去等，如果过去生中产生的这个，如果现在产生，那么在过去时就已经产生了，这从道理上也不应理，因为会变成常恒。常恒轮回也不合理，即使安住于一个有情，也会执持各种有情。在此，变成地狱等的有情后，现在生为人，内心安住于地狱，如果这样认为，那么这对于此是不合理的。怎么能人变成地狱等呢？如果经中说，那时那刻，我就是转轮王我勒努，这应该如何理解呢？应该理解为，那样说是仅仅为了否定其他，而不是为了显示那就是那样。因此，才说那时那刻不是其他。如果先前的那个就是现在的这个，如果那样，有什么过失呢？即使已经说过会变成常恒的过失，还要再说，如果认为那就是自性，那么就会变成执取不同，这样说了。如果先前的自性就是现在的，那么五蕴自性的执取就没有差别了。自性也不是执取没有差别。
English
gyur. It is said that if a self that did not exist before comes into being, it will become born from no cause. Because there was no self before, there is no agent, so it becomes causeless. This shows that the scriptures state that the self is not impermanent. If you admit that the self is the basis of impermanence, then it contradicts the scriptures. Therefore, because it is not desired to be impermanent, it is said that this is also not reasonable to be impermanent, which is the conclusion. In order to show that it is unreasonable from the source of the scriptures, it is said, "As it is." As it is said, it is from the Root Wisdom of the Middle Way. The past, etc., if this which arose in the past birth, if it were to arise now, then it would have arisen in the past, which is also unreasonable according to reason, because it would become permanent. It is also unreasonable for the permanent to be in cyclic existence, and even if one abides in one being, one will hold various beings. Here, having become a being of hell, etc., and now being born as a human, one dwells in hell in one's heart, and if one thinks like that, then that is unreasonable for this. How can a human become hell, etc.? However, if the sutra says, "At that time, at that moment, I myself was the wheel-turning king Nalu," how should that be understood? It should be understood that what was said in that way was only to negate others, and not to show that it was that itself. Therefore, it is said that at that time, at that moment, it is not other. It is said. If the previous one is the present one, what is the fault if it is like that? Even though the fault of becoming permanent has already been stated, it must be stated again. If you think that it becomes the self, then it will become different to grasp, it is said. If the previous self is the present one, then the grasping of the nature of the five aggregates will be no different. The self is also not a grasping that has no difference.
Chinese
然而，近取是特殊的，因为近取的因不同，时间也不同。因此，如果近取不是特殊的，那么认为自身就是那个自身是不合理的。如果近取是特殊的，那么，因为我是唯一的，我没有差别，所以在过去的时间里就是那样，这样说也是可以的。对此的回答是：除了近取之外，你的我又是谁呢？如果近取是其他的，而不是我，那么，即使近取是特殊的，也不会与我没有差别，不能指出这是我，这是近取这样的差别。如果我与近取的自性不同，那么就会陷入无因，并且会陷入执着于不同。当除了近取之外无法指出我的时候，就不能这样考察近取是特殊的，而我不是特殊的。这样，通过论典的方式来指示我是不合理的。为了通过论典的方式来指示无生灭，所以说了变成生灭等等。所谓差别二，就是生灭的差别。为了通过论典的方式来指示常等也不是我，所以说了“于此”等等。所谓“如是说”，就是出自《中观根本慧论》。所谓“如来以观察的方式完全了知我时”，就是对如来完全观察并分析我。所谓“常”等等，是世尊在经中没有授记的十四种事物，那些之前已经说过了。这样，如来不可能有空性等等，同样，常等四种也不可能存在，因此，世尊就像对石女之子的青色和白色感到新鲜一样，对世间人没有授记这四种相。如何那样
English
However, taking up is special, because the cause of taking up is different, and the time is also different. Therefore, if taking up is not special, then it is unreasonable to think that oneself is that very self. If taking up is special, then, because I am the only one, I have no difference, so it is possible to say that it was like that in the past time. The answer to this is: Apart from taking up, who is your self? If taking up is other, and not me, then, even if taking up is special, it will not be without difference from me, and it cannot be pointed out that this is me, this is the difference of taking up. If I am different from the nature of taking up, then it will fall into causelessness, and it will fall into clinging to difference. When I cannot be pointed out apart from taking up, then it cannot be examined that taking up is special, and I am not special. Thus, it is unreasonable to indicate the self through the way of treatises. In order to indicate the absence of arising and ceasing through the way of treatises, it is said to become arising and ceasing, etc. The so-called two differences are the differences of arising and ceasing. In order to indicate that permanence, etc., are also not the self through the way of treatises, it is said "in this," etc. The so-called "as it is said" is from the Root Wisdom of the Middle Way. The so-called "when the Tathagata completely knows the self by the way of observation" is to completely observe and analyze the self of the Tathagata. The so-called "permanent," etc., are the fourteen things that the Blessed One did not prophesy in the sutras, and those have been said before. Thus, it is impossible for the Tathagata to have emptiness, etc., and similarly, the four of permanence, etc., are also impossible to exist. Therefore, the Blessed One did not prophesy these four aspects to the world, just as one feels fresh about the blue and white of the son of a barren woman. How is that so?