English
Because there is no reason to prove what "is" and what is "not-self," "I" and "other" are merely conceptual designations, that is, "I" is the "other" of "I," and the "other" of "I" is the "I" of "other." For example, just as "this shore" and "that shore" are merely interdependent concepts, and in reality "this shore" and "that shore" do not exist, similarly, "I" and "other" do not exist in reality, but are merely conceptual designations. The key is that if we conceptually regard other sentient beings as "I" and hold onto this view, then the wisdom of "I" will arise. It is said that because of this, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas regard sentient beings as "I," so they cannot bear even the slightest suffering of others, just like the aforementioned "body completely burning," and so on. And it is said, "There is no doubt about regarding sentient beings as me." Devadatta shot a swan with an arrow, and the Buddha regarded it as "I." Machig Labdrön also said that in the future, the fierce practitioners of Chö will use my hook of compassion to seize the wealth—fierce gods and demons—and subdue them with violence, so the gods and demons are like being regarded as wealth. If sentient beings are regarded as "I," even long-term habituation is not necessary. For example, like an old horse, verbally saying to give it to someone else, once given, that person will regard that horse as "I" and will not be able to bear its suffering. Even so, if you think, "My bad mind has become habitual, so I will not regard sentient beings as me," that is possible. The Buddha, the Bhagavan, said that in this world, if tamed and placed on the path, there is no other thing like the mind that is more obedient or easier to tame. If not tamed, there is no other thing like the mind that is more disobedient. Therefore, if you do not let your own mind go on the wrong path, but tame it, then there is nothing that cannot be tamed. If you do not tame your own mind, you cannot tame others, so you should strive to tame your own mind. Like this, using reason to prove that suffering must be eliminated, I vow to eliminate all suffering that is of no benefit to other sentient beings, because they are meaningless suffering. For example, like my own suffering of hunger and thirst, this is giving a similar example. Similarly, I should
Chinese
应当为他们成办利益和安乐，因为他们是有情。例如如同对待自己的身体一样。当我和其他有情都同样希望获得安乐时，我和他们有什么区别呢？既然没有任何区别，那么有什么理由不努力使他人获得安乐，而只努力使自己获得安乐呢？不应该这样努力。同样，当我和其他有情都同样不希望感受痛苦时，我和自己有什么区别呢？既然没有任何区别，那么有什么理由不去保护他人免受痛苦，而只保护自己免受痛苦呢？不应该这样做。如果说，因为我的痛苦会伤害到我自己，所以我必须保护自己；而他人遭受痛苦，现在并没有直接伤害到我，所以我不保护他人的痛苦，那么，粗略地说，来世地狱等等的痛苦，以及明天和下个月乃至更远的痛苦，以及细微地说，下一刹那乃至更远的痛苦，例如没有食物和衣服等等，未来将要感受的痛苦，无论大小，现在都没有直接伤害到我，或者说没有伤害，那么现在为什么要保护未来的痛苦呢？不应该保护。这与他人的痛苦不同，虽然现在没有直接伤害到我，但我将要感受未来的痛苦，所以要保护。如果这样想，那么，粗略地说，将今生来世的蕴聚和细微地说，将前后刹那的蕴聚执为一体的分别念，那完全是颠倒的。原因是这样的，粗略地考虑今生来世，从今生转移而死亡的那一刻，也与来世的生命不同，而所生的来世的生命，也与前世死亡的那一刻不同。因此，现在在人间停留多久，是由过去的业力决定的，当业力耗尽时，人的意识最后一刹那灭亡，以此作为近取因，与将要投生到地狱等处的业力一起作为俱生缘，当来世投生到地狱等处时，死亡的是人的蕴聚，而出生的是地狱的蕴聚，因为
English
One should accomplish benefit and happiness for them, because they are sentient beings. For example, just like treating one's own body. When both I and other sentient beings equally desire to attain happiness, what difference is there between me and them? Since there is no difference at all, what reason is there not to strive for the happiness of others, but only to strive for the happiness of oneself? It is not appropriate to strive in that way. Similarly, when both I and other sentient beings equally do not wish to experience suffering, what difference is there between me and myself? Since there is no difference at all, what reason is there not to protect others from suffering, but only to protect oneself from suffering? It is not appropriate to do so. If one says, 'Because my suffering harms me, I must protect myself; but because suffering arises in others, it does not directly harm me now, so I do not protect the suffering of others,' then, roughly speaking, the suffering of future lives, such as hells, and the suffering of tomorrow and the next month and beyond, and subtly speaking, the suffering of the next moment and beyond, such as the lack of food and clothing, which will be experienced in the future, whether great or small, none of them directly harm me now, or do not harm me, then why protect future suffering now? It is not appropriate to protect it. This is not the same as the suffering of other sentient beings, although it does not directly harm me now, I will experience future suffering, so I must protect myself. If one thinks like that, then, roughly speaking, the conceptual thought that grasps the aggregates of this life and future lives as one, and subtly speaking, the conceptual thought that grasps the aggregates of past and future moments as one, is completely inverted. The reason for this is as follows: roughly considering this life and future lives, the moment of passing away and dying from this life is also different from the future life, and the future life in which one is born is also different from the moment of death in the previous life. Therefore, how long one stays in the human realm now is determined by past karma, and when that karma is exhausted, the last moment of human consciousness ceases, and taking this as the immediate cause, together with the karma that will cause one to be born in hells and other places as the co-arising condition, when one is born in hells and other places in the future, what dies is the aggregate of the human, and what is born is the aggregate of the hell, because
Chinese
前一刹那的意识是人的意识，后一刹那产生的是地狱的意识，因此是不同的。而且，人的身心灭亡后，后世的身心产生，也不是说前一世转移或去了后一世。如是说：念诵、镜子、灯火、房屋，火、玻璃、种子、酸味和声音，蕴自身连接，不转移也应由智者了悟。如灯火从一个点燃到另一个，后一个不依赖于前一个，也不是前一个转移到后一个，应如是理解。这样，如果前一刹那灭亡，后一刹那产生，前后二者是不同的，那么所造的业就会白费，会遇到没有造的业吗？不会的，因为因缘依赖的显现是不可欺骗的，不可思议的，超越了常断，业果不会白费，这是内道佛教的特点，是全知者才有的境界，因此业因果应通过对佛陀教言的信任来证悟。如是说：依赖于什么而产生，那暂时不是它本身，也与它不同，因此不是常也不是断。如是说，只是依赖而假立，既不是一也不是异，虽然显现的意识因善恶诸业而显现为不同，但只是明觉的觉性，同类相续不断地产生，并且超越了常断，因此业果不会白费，也不会遇到没有造的业。如果思维微细的刹那之理，那么内外一切事物都是最终的刹那。那些前后刹那也是前一刹那灭亡，后一刹那产生，因此是不同的。而且，我们在此人世间居住多久，由业所决定，前一刹那的意识灭亡，以此为因而产生后一刹那的意识，因此同类相续产生，所以刹那都是不同的。当感受者所感受的痛苦是什么时，必须由感受者自己来守护，而不是由其他人来守护。如果是这样，那么脚上扎了刺等痛苦，也不是由其他的手来感受，那么为什么脚的痛苦要由手来守护呢？
English
The previous moment's consciousness is the consciousness of a human, and the subsequent moment's consciousness is the consciousness of hell, therefore they are different. Moreover, when the body and mind of a human cease, and the body and mind of the next life arise, it is not that the previous one is transferred or goes to the next one. As it is said: Recitation, mirror, lamp, house, fire, glass, seed, sourness, and sound, the aggregates themselves connect, the wise should understand that there is no transference. Just as when a lamp is lit from one to another, the latter does not depend on the former, nor is the former transferred to the latter, so it should be understood. Thus, if the previous moment ceases and the subsequent moment arises, and the two are different, then would the actions done be wasted, and would one encounter actions not done? It would not, because the appearance of dependent origination of cause and condition is infallible, inconceivable, and transcends permanence and annihilation. The non-wasting of karmic results is a characteristic of inner Buddhism, and is the domain of the omniscient alone. Therefore, karmic cause and effect should be realized through faith in the words of the Victorious Ones. As it is said: That which arises in dependence on something, that is not exactly that itself for a while, and it is also different from that, therefore it is neither permanent nor annihilated. As it is said, it is merely imputed in dependence, and nothing is established as either one or different. Although this appearing consciousness appears differently due to various good and bad actions, the mere awareness of clear knowing arises as a similar continuum without interruption, and because it transcends permanence and annihilation, karmic results are not wasted, and one does not encounter actions not done. If we consider the subtle nature of moments, then all phenomena, internal and external, are ultimate moments. Those previous and subsequent moments are also different because the previous one ceases and the subsequent one arises. Moreover, how long we dwell in this human realm is determined by karma, and the cessation of the previous moment's consciousness causes the arising of the subsequent moment's consciousness, thus a similar continuum arises, so the moments are all different. When the suffering experienced by the experiencer is what, it must be protected by the experiencer himself, and not by others. If that is the case, then the suffering of a thorn piercing the foot, etc., is not experienced by the hand, so why should the suffering of the foot be protected by the hand?
Chinese
是为不应理。 假设说，像这样守护，即使不合道理，但由于在此执著于我，所以生生世世和手足等互相守护的心会产生，如果这样说： 执著于我和他人是不合理的，或者我和他人的不合理，无论哪种痛苦，都应该尽力避免，所以是错误的。 像这样，即使生生世世等不是一体，但它们是连续的；手足等即使是不同的，但它们是一个集合，所以应该这样守护，如果这样说： 它们被称为连续的一体和集合的一体，依次来说，连续不是由许多刹那组成，并且不是既非相同也非相异，所以是虚假的，例如念珠由许多珠子组成，而称之为念珠的连续一体；集合也像许多拿着武器的人聚集在一起被称为军队等等一样，是虚假的，只是假立或名称而已，实际上并没有成立。 这才是确立人无我的最佳方法，因为除了常一自在的我之外，凡是执著于我的，都是执著于连续或集合为我，因此为了显示那两者不成立且不存在。 像这样，因为没有连续和集合，所以感受痛苦者或具有痛苦者的我并不存在，因此，所感受的痛苦由谁来支配或控制呢？因为没有任何支配者。 像这样，对于所感受的痛苦，没有感受者的主宰或支配者，那么我和他人就完全没有差别了，像这样，如果没有我，那么依赖于我的他人也不存在，由于两者都不存在，所以没有区分的基础，因此，这既不是我的痛苦，也不是他人的痛苦，因为没有差别或区分，所以守护和不守护的区分也是不合理的。 像这样，由于这样的力量，只要是应该消除痛苦，因为是痛苦的缘故，所以也必须由我来消除他人的痛苦，这样就成立了，因此，消除我的痛苦而不消除他人的痛苦是确定的，因为确定执著于此，所以没有什么可做的，因为什么也不需要，所以非常错误。 痛苦的感受者的主宰或感受者的
English
is unreasonable. If it is said that even if guarding in this way is not reasonable, due to the habit of clinging to self here, the mind of guarding each other in life after life and limbs etc. will arise, if so: Clinging to self and others is unreasonable, or the unreasonableness of self and others, whichever suffering it is, should be avoided as much as possible, so it is a mistake. Like this, even if life after life etc. are not one, they are a continuous one; even if limbs etc. are different, they are one collection, so they should be guarded like that, if so: They are called a continuous one and a collection one, respectively, continuity is not composed of many moments, and it is neither the same nor different, so it is false, for example, a rosary is composed of many beads, and it is called a continuous one of the rosary; a collection is also like many people holding weapons gathered together are called an army etc., it is false, just a designation or name, but in reality it is not established. This is the best method to establish the selflessness of a person, because except for the permanent, single, and independent self, whatever clings to self, clings to continuity or collection as self, therefore, in order to show that those two are not established and do not exist. Like this, because there is no continuity and collection, the one who experiences suffering or the self of the one who has suffering does not exist, therefore, who will control or dominate this suffering to be experienced? Because there is no controller. Like this, for the suffering to be experienced, there is no master or controller of the experiencer, then there is absolutely no difference between self and others, like this, if there is no self, then the other who depends on self also does not exist, since both do not exist, there is no basis for distinction, therefore, this is neither my suffering nor the suffering of others, because there is no difference or distinction, so the distinction of guarding and not guarding is also unreasonable. Like this, due to the power of this, as long as suffering should be eliminated, because it is suffering, so the suffering of others must also be eliminated by me, thus it is established, therefore, eliminating my suffering and not eliminating the suffering of others is certain, because of the certain clinging to this, so there is nothing to do, because nothing is needed, so it is very wrong. The master of the experiencer of suffering or the experiencer's