When the inner self is not

Female, male or neuter,

It is only out of ignorance

That you think your own self male. [10.226]

When all the elements are not

Male, female or neuter,

How is that which depends on them

Male, female or neuter? [10.227]

Your self is not my self and thus there is

No such self, since it is not ascertained.

Does the conception not arise

In relation to impermanent things? [10.228]

From one rebirth to another

The person changes like the body.

It is illogical for yours to be

Separate from the body and permanent. [10.229]

Intangible things do not

Produce so-called motility.

Thus the life force is not

Agent of the body’s movements. [10.230]

Why [teach] non-violence and wonder about

Conditions for a permanent self?

A diamond never has to be

Protected against woodworm. [10.231]

If your self is permanent

Because of remembering other lives,

How can your body be impermanent

When you see a scar previously formed? [10.232]

If the self when possessing that

Which has mind is a knower,

By that [same argument] that which has mind would be

Mindless and the person permanent. [10.233]

A life force which has pleasure and so forth

Appears as various as pleasure and so forth.

Thus like pleasure it is not

Suitable as something permanent. [10.234]

If consciousness is permanent

An agent is superfluous.

If fire is permanent

Fuel is unnecessary. [10.235]

A substantial entity, unlike an action,

Does not alter until it disintegrates.

Thus it is improper to claim

The person exists but consciousness does not. [10.236]

At times one sees potential consciousness,

At other consciousness itself.

Because of being like molten iron

The person undergoes change. [10.237]

Merely [a small part with] mind is conscious

But the person is as vast as space.

Therefore it would seem as though

Its nature is not to be conscious. [10.238]

If the self is in everyone then why

Does another not think of this one as “I”?

It is unacceptable to say that

It is obscured by itself. [10.239]

There is no difference between

The insane and those for whom

The attributes are the creator

But are never conscious. [10.240]

What is more illogical

Than that the attributes should always

Know how to construct homes and so forth

But not know how to experience them? [10.241]

The active is not permanent.

The ubiquitous is actionless. [10.242ab]

The actionless is like the non-existent.

Why do you not prefer selflessness? [10.242cd]

Some see it as ubiquitous and for some

The person is the mere [size of the] body.

Some see it as a mere particle.

The wise see it as non-existent. [10.243]

How can what is permanent be harmed,

Or the unharmed be liberated?

Liberation is irrelevant

For one whose self is permanent. [10.244]

If the self exists it is inappropriate

To think there is no self

And false to claim one attains nirvana

Through certain knowledge of reality. [10.245]

If it exists at liberation

It should not be non-existent before.

It is explained that what is seen

Without anything is its nature. [10.246]

If the impermanent discontinues

How could there be grass at present?

If, indeed, this were true,

No one would have ignorance either. [10.247]

Even if the self exists

Form is seen to arise from other [causes],

To continue by virtue of others

And to disintegrate through others. [10.248]

Just as the sprout which is a product

Is produced from a product, the seed,

Similarly all that is impermanent

Comes from the impermanent. [10.249]

Since functional things arise

There is no discontinuation

And because they cease

There is no permanence. [10.250]