Chinese
仅仅是不执著于多种法，并且也仅仅是安立的自相续所摄持，虽然显现如此，但它不会产生俱生的我执。如果无论如何都要产生，即使知道无有真实，对于仅仅具有自相续蕴的意识也不会退转，如果与此相同，那么你们会说或思考，像这样的有余依阿罗汉们也没有吗？因此，如果不了解作为空性差别的，我依赖于蕴而生起的那个自性，就认为将缘起的意义说成是空性对于大乘是不合理的。如果这样想，那么声闻部派所承认的补特伽罗无我，也必须解释为依赖于蕴而安立，并非自性空，而仅仅是蕴空无常我。如果是这样，那么就像“证悟无我时，舍弃常我”等意义一样，就不能从根源上拔除俱生我执的执著境，因此这表明了前后经文的意义应该这样统一解释，这是无垢的月称论师的观点。因此，要确立仅仅是安立在蕴上的我，声闻缘觉也具有了知其依赖于蕴而生起的空性。并且，如果不是这样，就像外道断除贪欲一样，也不能从轮回中解脱，像这样广泛地确立，了解这一点非常重要，暂时先说这么多。还有，白岩化身（བྲག་དཀར་སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐུ།）具慧者的口中说：现在有些现今的《行论释》（spྱོད་ཊཱིཀ་པ།）者，在“即使没有烦恼”的时候，说“在此仅仅断除了烦恼的现行就能解脱”这样连接是不合理的，等等，说了这些并试图反驳，就像愚人与国王争斗一样，没有看到有任何损害。因为，这里所说的业的力量的有无，是指作为再次投生来世之因的业的力量的有无，因为这里是争论仅仅依靠修习无常等道是否能从轮回中解脱的时候。因此，对于像不安住于意义的阿罗汉目犍连之子，以及不可思议变化的死亡转移等，并将其联系起来争论解脱是否是永久的等等，不需要自己给自己增加麻烦。将他宗认为仅仅依靠证悟无常等道的道就能解脱的观点作为宗，并安立为理由，说“仅仅断除了烦恼的现
English
It is merely not fixating on multiple dharmas, and it is also merely established and encompassed by one's own continuum. Although it appears that way, it does not generate innate ego-grasping. If it is necessary to generate it in any way, even if one knows there is no truth, it is similar in that it does not revert even for the mind that only has the aggregates of one's own continuum. If it is the same, then would you say or contemplate that such minds are not present even in the Arhats with remainder? Therefore, if one does not understand that self-nature which arises dependently, which is a distinction of emptiness, and thinks that explaining the meaning of dependent arising as emptiness is unreasonable for the Mahayana, then the assertion of the Hearer school that the selflessness of the person is also established in dependence on the aggregates, not empty of self-nature, but only explaining that the aggregates are empty of a permanent self. If that is the case, then just as in the meaning of "When selflessness is realized, the permanent self is abandoned," etc., it will not uproot the object of clinging of innate ego-grasping from its roots. Therefore, it shows that the meaning of the earlier and later scriptures should be explained in this way as one, which is the flawless view of Chandrakirti. Therefore, establish that the Hearers and Solitary Realizers have this much emptiness, which is knowing that the self that is merely labeled on the aggregates arises dependently. And if it is not so, just like the cessation of desire of the outsiders, one will not be liberated from samsara. It is very important to understand that this is widely established, and for now, I will say a little. Also, from the mouth of the incarnation of Drakkar (བྲག་དཀར་སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐུ།), the wise one: Here, some of the current commentators on conduct (spྱོད་ཊཱིཀ་པ།), in the case of "even without afflictions," say that it is unreasonable to connect it by saying "here, liberation is attained by merely abandoning the manifest afflictions," etc., and try to refute it, but it is like a fool fighting with a king, and I do not see any harm. Because, the presence or absence of the power of karma mentioned here refers to the presence or absence of the power of karma that causes rebirth in the next life, because this is the time when it is debated whether or not one can be liberated from samsara by merely practicing the path of impermanence, etc. Therefore, there is no need to trouble oneself by applying it to the son of Maudgalyayana, the Arhat who does not abide in meaning, and the death transference of inconceivable change, and debating whether or not liberation is permanent. Taking the view of others who believe that liberation can be attained merely by the path of realizing impermanence, etc., as the subject, and establishing it as a reason, saying "merely abandoning the manifest afflictions."