Who is the "I" that takes the body as mine?

The body is not self, nor is it belonging to self; I lodge in this body, and once the body disappears, I must go find another body to lodge in. Who does the "I" here refer to? Whoever takes the body as self and belonging to self—that is whom this "I" refers to. First of all, the tathāgatagarbha certainly would not take the body as self and belonging to self; He has no intention of using the body to do or not do 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 five sense consciousnesses have very coarse mental activity and no notions or views of self. The mind consciousness has thoughts and notions of self, but when it comes to entering the womb to seek a body to lodge in, the mind consciousness is powerless; moreover, the mind consciousness is not continuous on the body, and it cannot exercise control over the body or bear primary responsibility. Therefore, this "I" refers to the manas.

To have something to dwell in and maintain, and to have something to make use of—these are the things the manas is most concerned with and most attached to. Entering the womb to take birth and possessing a physical body is what the manas cares about and clings to most, and the functions and operations of the five aggregates are what the manas most wants to grasp. Hence the self-view of the manas is deeply rooted and the most obstinate. Once the manas comes to regard the physical body and the five aggregates as not being self and belonging to self, its obstinate clinging to the body and the five aggregates will gradually be severed completely, and it will be liberated from all suffering feelings within the world of the five aggregates. 

Because Chinese vocabulary is not rich enough, the terms used in Buddhist teachings and in worldly usage cannot be separated, and many dharmic meanings cannot be expressed accurately, leading to many misunderstandings. Take, for example, the word "true" (真): both worldly usage and Buddhist teachings use this same word. What does "true" mean in worldly usage, and what does it mean in Buddhist teachings? People simply cannot distinguish between them, and the two are often confused. Especially for those who have studied the Mahāyāna tathāgatagarbha teachings, whenever "true" is mentioned, they assume it refers to the true mind of the tathāgatagarbha and true suchness. In worldly usage, people also have the term "true mind" (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 truly 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 people study the tathāgatagarbha teachings, they pin everything onto the tathāgatagarbha. But the tathāgatagarbha has no "head" at all—how could anything be pinned onto it? In worldly usage there is an "I," and in Buddhist teachings there is also an "I," and the meanings of these two "I"s differ enormously. Yet after studying the tathāgatagarbha teachings, people become muddled and can no longer tell which "I" is meant. Whenever they encounter the word "I," they assume it refers to the tathāgatagarbha. Could the elimination of self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi) mean eliminating the view of the tathāgatagarbha? When it says the five aggregates are self, does that mean the five aggregates are the tathāgatagarbha? And does "the five aggregates are not self" necessarily mean the five aggregates are not the tathāgatagarbha?