English
Those twenty-four, such as the non-sentient chief entity, also become one, because they are all merely existent, the same and without difference. When the distinctions of cognition, such as grasping form, grasping sound, etc., are untrue or inverted, therefore, when it is thought that there is no truth in difference, then, beyond the removal of all distinctions, what is that true basis or single universal that is commonly the same as mere cognition? There is nothing. The second is: Those with contact, etc., say, "I am pervasive like the sky and am considered to be permanent, therefore I am not cognition. If I were cognition, I would become impermanent and non-pervasive. Therefore, I do not have cognition but am non-sentient. However, because I am combined with cognition, I cling to happiness, etc., as mine. I exist." To this, the non-sentient is also not the self, because it is non-sentient, just like a pot, felt, etc. If it is thought that the self is the agent and the basis of happiness and suffering, then non-sentient beings could never be the basis of happiness, etc. Or, although the self itself is not of the nature of mind, it possesses similarity with mind, and therefore, through its blessing, it becomes aware of objects? If so, then the assertion that the self does not know objects or the admission that there is no cognition would collapse, because it has become the nature of knowing objects. In that case, it would also become impermanent. If the self is unchanging and permanent, then what action of knowing objects has the mind done to that self? It has done nothing, because the self is immutable and cannot perform the action of changing from its previous nature to another change, just as color cannot turn the sky blue, etc. In this way, the non-sentient, devoid of all action, the sky, this is merely assumed to be the self. Alas, look at the wisdom of the wise! Third, refuting the arguments against the meaning of selflessness, there are: refuting the argument that if there is no self, cause and effect are unreasonable, refuting the argument that if there is no self, compassion is unreasonable, and showing that the imputed self is not obstructed. The first is: Those who assert the existence of a self say, "If, according to your view, the self does not exist, then the result from virtuous and non-virtuous actions done from the cause"
Chinese
这种认为感受痛苦的联系不混乱的观点是不合理的。因为，作者的“我”不可能去到另一个世界，所以在果报的时候是不存在的。而且，蕴体是刹那生灭的，所以从造业的刹那起，作者就已灭尽，因此，业不可能在作者自身成熟。如果不在自身成熟，那么，别人的业在别人身上成熟是不合理的，那么谁来感受这个业呢？这是不合理的。暂时压制一下。纽布二人都认为，行为发生的阶段和感受果报的阶段的因或基础的蕴体是不同的。在这两个阶段，除了蕴体之外的常我，要么是无心识的，要么是常恒的，因此，常恒是与一切行为分离的，或者说是不作为的，这也是通过量成立的。因此，这个争论对你我二人都成立，所以我们两个都应该放弃这个争论，在这里说只有我们不合理因果是不对的，这是没有意义的。即使那样，那个过失在我的宗派里是可以避免的，但你永远不能。导师如来曾说：比丘们，已做和已积的业的果报，不会在外面的地界等成熟，而会在已摄取的蕴、界、处成熟。因此，果报在作者自身成熟，这也是就一个相续而言的观点。因未灭而具有，与果报一起，即见到其果报是不可能的，因为果必须从因中产生。或者说，因与行为具有的刹那，同时感受其果报，见到这是不可能的，就像父子不能同时出生一样。这样说过。因此，虽然果报产生的时候，因灭是普遍的，但是，由于缘起不虚妄的力量，产生果报是必然的。而且，那样的果报，也在因的集合体圆满的补特伽罗的相续中成熟，而不是在其他地方，就像种子种在地上，不会在石头上生长一样。因此，五蕴的相续，种类相同，没有中断的衰
English
This view that the connection of experiencing suffering is not confused is unreasonable. Because the agent's "I" cannot go to another world, it does not exist at the time of the result. Moreover, the aggregates arise and cease momentarily, so from the moment of the action, the agent has ceased and perished, so the action cannot mature in the agent himself. If it does not mature in itself, then it is unreasonable for the action of others to mature in others, then who will experience this action? This is unreasonable. Let's suppress it for a while. Both Niu and Bu believe that the aggregates that are the cause or basis of the stage of action and the stage of experiencing the result are different. In these two stages, the permanent self other than the aggregates is either unconscious or permanent, therefore, permanence is separate from all actions, or is inactive, which is also established by valid cognition. Therefore, this argument is established for both of us, so we should both abandon this argument, and it is meaningless to say here that only we have unreasonable cause and effect. Even so, that fault can be avoided in my system, but you can never do it. The teacher, the Tathagata, once said: Monks, the fruits of actions done and accumulated will not mature in the external realm of earth, etc., but will mature in the aggregates, realms, and sources that have been taken up. Therefore, the maturation of the result in the agent himself is also a view in terms of one continuum. The cause has not ceased and is possessed, together with the result, that is, seeing its result is impossible, because the result must arise from the cause. Or, the moment when the cause is possessed with action, at the same time experiencing its result, seeing this is impossible, just as father and son cannot be born at the same time. It has been said like this. Therefore, although it is common for the cause to cease when the result arises, it is certain that the result will arise due to the power of the unfailing dependent origination. Moreover, that kind of result also matures in the continuum of the person where the collection of causes is complete, and not elsewhere, just as a seed planted on the ground will not grow on a rock. Therefore, the continuum of the five aggregates, the same kind, the uninterrupted decline
Chinese
依赖于一个相续，就有了作者和享受果报者这样的安立，这样安立之后，世间人的所有思维方式都如此存在。既然如此，仅仅因为相续是一个，难道不是就有一个我吗？不是的，相续就像念珠一样是假立的，实际上是不存在的。而且，很容易认识到色身的衰老和年轻，以及前世和后世不是同一个。从心的角度来说，过去的心和未来的心不是我，因为它们依次是已逝去的和未生起的，因为不存在，所以与我的存在相违背。如果认为现在生起的心是我，那么当现在的心坏灭时，也会变成没有我，你认为我是从先前来到这里，又从这里去到彼处，所以生起的心也不是我。因此，《入行论》中也说：“依赖于慈爱所隐藏的诸法，因为是其他的缘故，不属于一个相续。哪些以自相而各自不同的，那些不应属于一个相续。”就像这样，这是为了遮止相续是我。例如，潮湿的树木，没有坚硬的部分，是空心的，如果将它们分开，也找不到任何坚硬的树心，就这样逐渐消失，同样，如果用理智来分析寻找，我也不是真实的，因为没有成立为真实存在。
English
Depending on a single continuum, there is the establishment of someone who is the agent and someone who enjoys the result. Having established it in this way, all the ways of thinking of worldly people exist in that way. Since it is like that, isn't it that just because the continuum is one, there is a single self? It is not, the continuum is imputed like a rosary, it does not exist in reality. Moreover, it is easy to realize that the aging and youth of the body, and the previous and later lives are not the same. Speaking from the point of view of the mind, the past mind and the future mind are not the self, because they are successively past and not yet arisen, because they do not exist, therefore it contradicts the existence of the self. If you think that the present arising mind is the self, then when the present mind is destroyed, there will also be no self. You assume that the self comes here from before and goes from here to the other side, so the arising mind is also not the self. Therefore, it is also said in the Engaging in Bodhisattva Deeds: "Because the dharmas that are hidden by love are other, they do not belong to one continuum. Those that are individually different by their own characteristics, those should not belong to one continuum." Like this, this is to prevent the continuum from being the self. For example, moist trees, without hard parts, are hollow, if they are separated, no hard heartwood can be found, and they gradually disappear. Similarly, if you search by analyzing with reason, the self is also not real, because it is not established as truly existent.
Chinese
实际上，我发誓并承担了解脱众生的责任，但这些众生并非真实存在，而是由于无明而执着为我的缘故。因此，即使菩萨证悟了无我，但由于所有具有慈悲之心的众生都没有这样领悟，所以他们像存在“我”一样，无意义地体验着痛苦的景象。因此，要缘着他们而生起慈悲。像这样，菩萨不执着于自身利益，并且看到其他众生无意义地受苦，以爱他胜己之心而生起，并且看到他人的痛苦也能像驱散沉睡一样被消除。第三个问题是：如果没有众生，那么为了谁的利益而努力的果实——成佛——是谁的？是谁获得的？因此，如果说为了果实而发誓也是不合理的，那该怎么办呢？实际上，这是真实的，因为获得者众生和所获得的果实都不是真实存在的，涅槃和非涅槃也没有区别。然而，众生存在于各自的显现方式中，正如刚才所说，从无明中产生执着，从对“我”的执着中产生了轮回的染污方面，以及与之相反的清净方面，这两者都是成立的。涅槃是指其他地方没有，而是指错误观念的分别念的止息。如《经庄严论》中所说：“因此，解脱只是错误的止息。”因此，由于无明的力量，执着于能取所取的戏论，轮回在显现上是不欺骗的。由于它的力量，也有轮回的止息——涅槃。就像被魔鬼附身的人，虽然和其他人一样生活，但在他的显现中，有颠倒的景象，如鬼怪的形象等，因此他感到痛苦，并且也安住在脱离痛苦的快乐中。因此，由于在胜义中，有和寂灭都不是真实成立的，所以系缚和解脱才是合理的。如果真实成立，那么系缚和解脱就不合理了，必须理解这个关键。那么，对于没有获得者的情况，却期望获得，学习道等有什么用呢？无明是必须以各种方式遣除的。
English
In reality, the beings that I have vowed and taken on the responsibility to liberate are not truly existent, but rather due to the ignorance of clinging to a self. Therefore, even though a Bodhisattva realizes selflessness, all sentient beings, the objects of compassion, do not realize it in the same way, and thus they experience the appearance of suffering pointlessly as if a 'self' exists. Therefore, compassion arises in relation to them. Like this, that Bodhisattva is not attached to their own benefit and sees other beings suffering pointlessly, arising from the strength of cherishing others more than oneself, and sees that the suffering of others can be dispelled like a deep sleep. The third point is: if there are no sentient beings, then for whose benefit is the fruit of effort—Buddhahood—for whom is it, who obtains it? Therefore, if it is said that vowing for the sake of the fruit is also unreasonable, what then? In reality, it is true that the sentient being who obtains and the fruit to be obtained are not truly established, and also Nirvana and non-Nirvana are the same, so there is no difference, it is asserted. However, sentient beings exist in their own appearances, as just explained, arising from ignorance, and from clinging to 'self' from ignorance, both the aspect of cyclic existence of defilement and the aspect of purification that reverses it are established. Nirvana is a term for the cessation of erroneous conceptual thoughts, not something that exists elsewhere. As stated in the Ornament of the Sutras: 'Therefore, liberation is merely the cessation of error.' Therefore, due to the power of ignorance, there is the non-deceptive appearance of cyclic existence, which is grasped by the proliferation of grasping and the grasped. Due to its power, there is also Nirvana, the reversal of cyclic existence. Just like a person possessed by a demon, although living in harmony with others, in their appearance there are inverted perceptions such as the form of spirits, etc., so they suffer and also abide in the happiness of being free from that suffering. Therefore, since existence and peace are not truly established in ultimate truth, bondage and liberation are reasonable. If they were truly established, then bondage and liberation would not be reasonable; this key must be understood. So, if there is no attainment, what is the use of you studying the path etc., hoping to attain? Ignorance must be reversed in every way.