Chinese
是作为所依之业。任何执持戒律和苦行是殊胜的，任何以戒律和苦行，以及以戒律和苦行的处所为近取的五蕴，视其为清净、解脱和决定出离，任何随之而来的忍耐、欲望、智慧、分别和见解，都是徒劳无功，是作为生起所依之业。戒律和苦行应被理解为以恶见为先导。徒劳无功是因为它们无法带来必然的结果。任何不真实的见解，对因、果或作用进行诽谤，导致事物毁灭，任何邪妄的分别，忍耐、欲望、智慧、分别和见解，都是断绝一切善根之业，是作为稳固生起不善根之所依之业，是进入不善之业，是不进入善之业。没有布施。没有祭祀。没有火供。没有善行。没有恶行。这被称为对因的诽谤。善行和恶行的业之果报不会成熟，这被称为对果的诽谤。没有今世。没有来世。没有父亲。没有母亲。没有有情众生。这被称为对作用的诽谤，因为这是对前往和来自其他世界的行为，播种种子的行为，以及连接自身界限的行为的诽谤。世间没有阿罗汉等等，这是对存在之物的毁灭。除此之外，任何颠倒的见解，无论是什么，都应被理解为邪妄的分别。断绝善根是从特殊的邪见中产生的，不是从一切中产生的。什么是五种见解？其中，增益见是多久？损减见是多久？四种是增益见，因为它们是对于所知之物的自性和差别增益执取，以及对于见解的殊胜和清净增益执取。
English
is the function of the basis. Whatever holds precepts and asceticism as supreme, whatever regards the five aggregates as pure, liberated, and definitively liberated, taking precepts and asceticism, and the place of precepts and asceticism as the basis, whatever forbearance, desire, wisdom, discrimination, and views follow accordingly, are all futile and are the function of the basis of arising. Precepts and asceticism should be understood as being led by wrong views. Futile labor is because it does not necessarily lead to results. Any untrue view, slandering cause, effect, or action, causing the destruction of things, any perverse discrimination, forbearance, desire, wisdom, discrimination, and views, are the actions of severing all roots of virtue, are the function of the basis of firmly arising roots of non-virtue, are the actions of entering into non-virtue, and are the actions of not entering into virtue. There is no giving. There is no sacrifice. There is no fire offering. There is no good conduct. There is no bad conduct. This is called slandering the cause. The ripening of the fruits of actions of good and bad conduct does not exist, this is called slandering the effect. There is no this world. There is no other world. There is no father. There is no mother. There are no sentient beings. This is called slandering the action, because it is the slander of the action of going to and coming from other worlds, the action of sowing seeds, and the action of connecting one's own boundaries. There are no Arhats in the world, etc., this is the destruction of existing things. Other than that, any inverted view, whatever it may be, should be understood as perverse discrimination. Severing the roots of virtue arises from special wrong views, not from all. What are the five views? Among them, how long is the view of superimposition? How long is the view of denial? Four are views of superimposition, because they are the close attachment to superimposing on the nature and differences of knowable things, and the superimposing on the excellence and purity of views.
Chinese
རོ། །五蕴自性的所知上，执著有我与我之体性，是为有身见。执著我常恒或无常恒等差别，是为边执见。于恶见执为殊胜等，是为见取见。于彼执为清净等，是为戒禁取见。一是大都为诽谤之见。一者大都，即邪分别，定不诽谤故。缘于前际而起分别之见为何？缘于后际而起分别之见为何？彼等当从何等之见中而了知耶？从二者或一切中而了知。未曾开示之事物，当从何等之见中了知？从二者或一切中而了知。若就体性而观察，则从边执见与邪见二者而生。若就眷属而观察，则从五见一切而生。世尊观见何种过患后，于蕴、界、处等以五种方式遮遣我？观见有身见所遍及之五种过患，即体性相违之过患，与无常性之过患，与无自主之过患，与无身之过患，与无需勤作而得解脱之过患。色等非我，以与体性相违故，彼等非我之体性。彼等无我，若无处则不生处故，成无常性之过患故。色非我所，于彼无有自在，故成无自主之过患故。彼等之外亦无我，无身则不现见我之周遍计度，故成无身之过患故。若有某者如是现证我，如是则无色等之我亦不应理，若无身等之系缚，则将从自之与而解脱故，成无需勤作而得解脱之过患故。于彼等近取之五蕴上，有身见之二十种边见，于色上。
English
ro. To cling to the knowable, which is the nature of the five aggregates, as self and the nature of self is to have the view of the collection. To cling to the distinction of whether the self is permanent or impermanent is to have the view of clinging to extremes. To hold evil views as supreme, etc., is to hold views as supreme. To cling to purity, etc., in that is to hold moral discipline and asceticism as supreme. One is mostly a view of denigration. One is mostly, that is, wrong discrimination, because it is certain not to denigrate. What is the view of discriminating at the former extreme? What is the view of discriminating at the latter extreme? From which of those views should they be understood? From two or all. From which views should the unrevealed objects be understood? From two or all. If examined in terms of characteristics, it arises from the two, the view of clinging to extremes and the wrong view. If examined in terms of retinue, it arises from all five views. Seeing what faults did the Blessed One eliminate the self in five ways in the aggregates, elements, and sources? Seeing the five faults pervaded by the view of the collection, namely, the fault of contradicting the characteristics, the fault of impermanence itself, the fault of not being independent, the fault of being without a body, and the fault of becoming liberated without effort. Form, etc., are not self, because they contradict the characteristics, they are not the characteristics of self. They are without self, because if there is no place, there is no place to arise, so it becomes a fault of impermanence. Form is not mine, because there is no power over it, so it becomes a fault of not being independent. There is also no self other than those, because without a body, the pervasive calculation of self is not visible, so it becomes a fault of being without a body. If someone realizes the self in this way, then the self without form, etc., is also unreasonable, because if there is no bondage of body, etc., then one will be liberated from one's own and, so it becomes a fault of becoming liberated without effort. On those five aggregates of close grasping, there are twenty extreme views of the view of the collection, on form.
Tibetan
དག་ཏུ་ཀུན་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་ལྟ་བ་དང༌། གཟུགས་བདག་དང་ལྡན་པ་དང༌། གཟུགས་བདག་གི་བ་དང༌། གཟུགས་ལ་གཟུགས་དང༌། ཚོར་བ་དང༌། འདུ་ཤེས་དང༌། འདུ་བྱེད་དང༌། རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་ཀུན་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་ལྟ་བ་དང༌། བདག་རྣམ་ཤེས་དང་ལྡན་པ་དང༌། རྣམ་ཤེས་བདག་གི་བ་དང༌། རྣམ་ཤེས་ལ་རྣམ་ཤེས་སོ། །དེ་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་ལྟ་བ་དུ། བདག་གིར་ལྟ་བ་དུ། ལྔ་ནི་བདག་ཏུ་ལྟ་བའོ། །བཅོ་ལྔ་ནི་བདག་གིར་ལྟ་བའོ། །ཅིའི་ཕྱིར་བཅོ་ལྔ་ནི་བདག་གིར་ལྟ་བ་འབྲེལ་བས་བདག་གི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པ་དང༌། དབང་བསྒྱུར་བས་བདག་གི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པ་དང༌། ཐ་དད་དུ་མི་འཇུག་པས་བདག་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །གཟུགས་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་ཀུན་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་ལྟ་བ་དང༌། ཚོར་བ་དང༌། འདུ་ཤེས་དང༌། འདུ་བྱེད་རྣམས་དང༌། རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་ལ་བདག་ཏུ་ཀུན་དུ་རྗེས་སུ་ལྟ་བ་སྟེ། དེ་ལྔ་བདག་ཏུ་ལྟ་བའོ། །གཟུགས་བདག་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནས། བདག་རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་དང་ལྡན་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་བར་དུ་ལྷག་མ་བཅོ་ལྔ་ནི་བདག་གིར་ལྟ་བའོ། །འབྲེལ་བས་བདག་གི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པ་ནི་འདི་ལྟར་དེ་དང་འབྲེལ་བས་དེ་དང་ལྡན་པར་འགྱུར་རོ། །གཟུགས་བདག་གི་བ་དང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ལས་རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་བདག་གི་བ་དང་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་བར་ནི། དབང་བསྒྱུར་བས་བདག་གི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། གང་ཞིག་སྦྱིན་པའམ། བསྒོ་པ་ལ་གང་གིས་དབང་དུ་འགྱུར་བ་དེ་ནི་དེའི་བདག་གི་ཞེས་བརྗོད་དོ། །གཟུགས་ལ་གཟུགས་དང་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ནས་རྣམ་ཤེས་ལ་རྣམ་ཤེས་སོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བའི་པར་ནི་ཐ་དད་དུ་མི་འཇུག་པས་བདག་གི་ཉེ་བར་ལེན་པའི་ཕྱིར་ཏེ། བདག་འདི་ནི་འདི་དག་ལ་རྗེས་སུ་ཞུགས་ཤིང་རྣམ་ པར་ཞུགས་ནས་བཞག་པ་སྟེ། ཡན་ལག་ཅན་གྱི་རྗེས་སུ་སོང་བར་ཀུན་དུ་བརྟགས་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཚོགས་ཅན་ལ་ལྟ་བ་གཟུགས་ཀྱི་དངོས་པོའམ། གཟུགས་མེད་ཀྱི་དངོས་པོར་བྱ། གཟུགས་མེད་ཀྱི་གཞིར་རིག་པར་བྱ་སྟེ། ཐག་པ་ལ་སྤྲུལ་དུ་རྟོག་པ་བཞིན་ནོ། །གཟུགས་མེད་པའི་དངོས་པོ་ནི་གཟུགས་ལ་སོགས་པའི་མཚན་ཉིད་ལ་དཔྱད་ན་བདག་ཏུ་ལྟ་བའི་གོ་སྐབས་མེད་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །དཔེར་ན་ཁ་གཅིག་གིས་མ་བརྟགས་པར་ཐག་པ་ལ་སྤྲུལ་དུ་འཛིན་པ་དང་འདྲ་སྟེ། སླར་ཐག་པ་ཡིན་པར་དཔྱད་ན་དེ་སྤྲུལ་དུ་འཛིན་པར་མི་འགྱུར་པའི་ཕྱིར་རོ། །ཁྲོ་བ་གང་གནོད་པའི་རྒྱུ་ཉེ་བར་གནས་ན། ཁོང་ཁྲོའི་ཆ་ཤས་སེམས་ཀུན་ནས་མནར་སེམས་པ་དབྱུག་པ་དང་མཚོན་ཆ་ལེན་པ་ལ་སོགས་པ་དང༌། གནོད་པ་ཤོམ་པ་འབྱུང་བའི་རྟེན་གྱི་ལས་ཅན་ནོ། །ཁྲོ་བ་ལ་སོགས་པ་ནི་བཏགས་ཡོད
Chinese
于一切处随观，与色为我，色为我所，于色中色，于受，于想，于行，于识中随观为我，我与识相应，识为我所，于识中识。于彼观我，于彼观我所。五者是观我。十五者是观我所。何以故十五者是观我所？由关连故为我所摄取，由自在故为我所摄取，由不异故我所摄取之故。于色中随观为我，于受，于想，于诸行，于识中随观为我，此五者是观我。色与我相应者，乃至我与识相应者，其间余十五者是观我所。由关连故为我所摄取者，谓如是与彼关连故，与彼相应也。色为我所与乃至识为我所与者，由自在故为我所摄取之故，何者施与或教令，由谁自在者，彼即说彼之我所也。于色中色与乃至识中识者，由不异故为我所摄取之故，此我随入此等中，而安住者，谓于有支之随行而普为观察之故也。观有聚者，当作色之事物，或无色之事物。当作无色之所依而了知，如于绳上而起蛇想一般。无色之事物者，若于色等之体性而观察，则无有观我之机会之故也。譬如未以一者观察，而执绳为蛇一般，若复观察是绳者，则不复执彼为蛇之故也。忿怒者，若损害之因邻近而住，忿怒之分心，由普于心而恼乱，取杖与武器等，及损害之预备，是生起之所依之作用者。忿怒等是假有。
English
Everywhere constantly observing, having form as self, form as belonging to self, in form as form, in feeling, in perception, in formations, in consciousness constantly observing as self, I am associated with consciousness, consciousness is mine, in consciousness as consciousness. In that, viewing as self, in that, viewing as belonging to self. Five are viewing as self. Fifteen are viewing as belonging to self. Why are fifteen viewing as belonging to self? Because by connection they are appropriated as mine, by mastery they are appropriated as mine, because they are not different they are appropriated as mine. In form constantly observing as self, in feeling, in perception, in formations, in consciousness constantly observing as self, these five are viewing as self. From 'form associated with self' to 'I am associated with consciousness,' the remaining fifteen are viewing as belonging to self. By connection, being appropriated as mine is like this: being connected with it, one becomes associated with it. From 'form belonging to self' to 'consciousness belonging to self,' it is because by mastery they are appropriated as mine. Whatever is given or commanded, by whomever it is mastered, that is said to be 'mine' of that. From 'in form as form' to 'in consciousness as consciousness,' it is because by not being different they are appropriated as mine. This self enters into these and abides, because it is generally contemplated as following the limbs. Viewing the aggregate as an object of form or an object of formlessness. It should be understood as the basis of formlessness, like imagining a snake on a rope. An object of formlessness, if one examines the characteristics of form, etc., there is no opportunity to view as self. For example, it is like grasping a rope as a snake without examining it with one aspect. If one examines it again as a rope, then one will not grasp it as a snake. When anger, the cause of harm, dwells nearby, the part of anger, the mind, is tormented throughout, taking up sticks and weapons, etc., and the preparation for harm is the function of the basis of arising. Anger and so on are imputations.