Chinese
之间的蕴聚是我的施设处，并且认为我被施设于此。而应成派认为蕴聚是施设我的因，但不是我的施设处和本体，有这三种差别。写完后像那样安立，在讲解应成派的论典时，带着傲慢的语气说，这是对萨迦派的教法（289a）作了事业。三种宗派中，第一种宗派，住子部认为不能说我和蕴聚是一个，因此完全不认为我是实有。大众部则无论是否这样认为，都这样说了，所以归于此。第二种宗派可以接受，但第三种宗派说那样说，比蒙古皇帝的法律破坏萨迦派的教法还要严重。因为在护持离边中观的宗义，即龙树和月称论师的观点时，已经破斥了那些宗派。因为在那个宗派中，色等蕴聚被认为是我的本体，是我的自性，并且认为蕴聚是我的近取因，我是近取果，用无量的道理进行了破斥，所以认为不成立。如果有人不擅长阅读中观的论典，没有精进和智慧，也请详细阅读一遍《般若摄颂》中“何故色非我”等颂词的论释。关于此，在《入中论》的注释中，如是说：“对于谁，遮止了色等为我，由此遮止了依赖于此而施设的我，即坏聚见之所缘，具有取蕴者。”应当这样理解，因为这正是思考的重点。因为如果不观察近取者，那么它的近取（289b）因也不存在。因此，对于色等也应当远离贪欲。这段话的意思是，务必学习理解《入中论》及其注释的词义。应成派不共的宗义中，说蕴聚是我的因，这应当放弃。如果你们把蕴聚是我的因说成是应成派的宗义，那么《入中论》及其注释的教证，对于卫藏康区三地
English
The aggregates in between are the basis for my imputation, and they believe that I am imputed there. The Prāsaṅgikas consider the aggregates to be the cause for imputing me, but not the basis for my imputation or the entity. There are these three differences. After writing and establishing it in that way, while explaining the Prāsaṅgika treatises, they speak with an arrogant tone, saying that they have done a deed for the teachings of the glorious Sakyas (289a). Among the three systems, the first system, the Vātsīputrīyas, believe that one cannot say that I and the aggregates are one, so they do not consider me to be substantially existent at all. The Mahāsāṃghikas, whether they believe it or not, say so, so they belong there. The second system can be accepted, but the third system saying that is more harmful than the Mongol emperor's laws destroying the Sakya teachings. Because when upholding the view of the Madhyamaka free from extremes, that is, the views of Nāgārjuna and Candrakīrti, those systems have been refuted. Because in that system, form and other aggregates are considered to be my entity, my nature, and they believe that the aggregates are my upādāna cause, and I am the upādāna result, which has been refuted with infinite reasons, so it is considered not established. If one is not skilled in reading the Madhyamaka treatises, and does not have diligence and wisdom, please read carefully once the commentary on the verse "Why is form not me" etc. in the Prajñāpāramitāsaṃgraha. Regarding this, in the commentary on the Madhyamakāvatāra, it is said: "For whom, the form etc. are denied as me, thereby is denied the I imputed in dependence on that, which is the object of the view of the destroyed aggregate, possessing the aggregates of grasping." It should be understood in this way, because this is precisely the focus of thought. Because if the grasper is not observed, then its grasping (289b) cause does not exist either. Therefore, one should also be free from desire for form etc. The meaning of this passage is that one must learn to understand the meaning of the words of the Madhyamakāvatāra and its commentary. In the uncommon tenet of the Prāsaṅgikas, saying that the aggregates are the cause of me, this should be abandoned. If you say that the aggregates are the cause of me as the tenet of the Prāsaṅgikas, then the scriptural citations of the Madhyamakāvatāra and its commentary, for the three regions of Ü-Tsang and Kham.