Who is the “I” that regards the body as “mine”?

The body is not the self, nor does it belong to the self; I dwell in this body as a lodger, and once the body disappears, I have no choice but to seek another body to dwell in. Who does the "I" here refer to? Whoever takes the body as the self and as belonging to the self — that is who the "I" refers to. First of all, the tathāgatagarbha certainly does not take the body as the self or as belonging to the self; He has no intention of using the body to do anything or to refrain from doing anything, and He is without intent in the operation of worldly phenomena, so this "I" does not refer to the tathāgatagarbha. Then this "I" refers to the seven consciousnesses. Among them, the minds of the five sense consciousnesses are extremely coarse and have no notions or views of a self; the mind consciousness has thoughts and notions of a self, but when it comes to entering the womb to seek a body to dwell in, the mind consciousness is powerless to act. Moreover, the mind consciousness is not continuous on the body, cannot exercise control over the body, and cannot bear the primary responsibility. Therefore, this "I" refers to the manas.

To have something to abide in and maintain, and to have something to make use of — these are the matters the manas cares about and clings to most. Entering the womb, receiving birth, and possessing a physical body are what the manas cares about and clings to most. The functions and operations of the five aggregates are what the manas most wants to grasp and hold. Therefore, the view of self of the manas is deeply rooted and the most obstinate. Once the manas realizes that the physical body and the five aggregates are not the self nor belonging to the self, its obstinate clinging to the physical body and the five aggregates will gradually be exhausted, and it will be liberated from all suffering feelings within the world of the five aggregates. 

Because the vocabulary of the Chinese language is not rich enough, the terms used in Buddhist dharma and in worldly affairs cannot be separated, and many dharma meanings cannot be expressed accurately, leading to many misunderstandings. Take, for example, the word "true" (真): both worldly dharma and Buddhist dharma use the same word. What does "true" mean in worldly dharma, and what does it mean in Buddhist dharma? People simply cannot distinguish between them, and the two are often confused. Especially for those who have studied the Mahāyāna tathāgatagarbha dharma, whenever "true" is mentioned, they assume it refers to the true mind and true reality of the tathāgatagarbha. In worldly dharma, people also have the term "true heart" (真心) and also use the word "real" (真实), but these have nothing to do with the tathāgatagarbha. For example, when A asks B: "Do you truly intend to do this? Are you genuinely willing? What are your real thoughts? Is this matter real? Is this thing genuine?" — not a single one of these sentences has anything to do with the tathāgatagarbha. Yet when studying the tathāgatagarbha, people attribute everything to the tathāgatagarbha. But the tathāgatagarbha has no head — how could anything be placed upon it? In worldly dharma there is a self, and in Buddhist dharma there is also a self, and the meanings of these two "selves" differ enormously. Yet after studying the tathāgatagarbha, people become muddled and can no longer tell which self is meant; whenever they encounter the word "self," they assume it refers to the tathāgatagarbha. Could the eradication of the view of self mean eradicating the view of the tathāgatagarbha? The five aggregates are the self — does that mean the five aggregates are the tathāgatagarbha? The five aggregates are not the self — must that necessarily mean the five aggregates are not the tathāgatagarbha?