勝鬘寶窟 2.43

From "World-Honoured One" onward: the preceding section was the first, briefly explaining refuge and fear; now the second extensively explains refuge and fear. Within the text there are two parts: from the beginning to "boundless and uninterrupted" it extensively explains fear; from "the Tathāgata abiding for an unlimited time" onward it extensively explains taking refuge. The first part also has two sections: first, it directly clarifies the reason why arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear; second, from "the knowledge that there is no subsequent rebirth" onward, it integrates the Small into the Great. Because they have fear, in the end they must enter the Great. The slight difference between this and the earlier integration of worldly wholesome dharmas is that the earlier worldly wholesome dharmas were simply adduced to be integrated; here, in integrating the supramundane, it extensively strips away [their claim to] ultimacy before integrating them. Why is this? It intends to show that the two vehicles do not cling to worldly wholesome dharmas as ultimate, so there was no need to strip them away to reveal that they are not ultimate, and they were simply adduced and integrated; but the two vehicles cling to supramundane dharmas as ultimate, so it must strip them away to reveal that they are not ultimate, and only then integrate them. Furthermore, it is a complementary expression showing the intention, also illustrating that the meanings of integration are manifold. First, stating that "arhats and pratyekabuddhas have fear" restates the earlier [mention of] fear. From "therefore, arhats…" onward, it extensively explains. Why is an extensive explanation needed? Previously it was said that arhats abide in the idea of fear regarding all non-practice, but it was not yet known what kinds of practice they lack; therefore an extensive explanation is needed, meaning they lack the practice of wisdom and nirvāṇa. Because they lack the four wisdoms, the practice of wisdom is not accomplished; because they lack nirvāṇa, the practice of cessation is insufficient. Furthermore, lacking the four wisdoms, the practice of the path is not complete; lacking nirvāṇa, the practice of eradication is insufficient. Again, lacking the four wisdoms, bodhi is not complete; lacking nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa is not ultimate. Furthermore, lacking the four wisdoms, conditioned merits are not fulfilled; lacking nirvāṇa, unconditioned merits are not complete. Again, within the text there are two parts: first, it directly clarifies that the four wisdoms of the two vehicles are not complete and their nirvāṇa is not fulfilled; second, from "Why is this? Only the Tathāgata…" onward, it explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain them, because they do not accomplish all virtues. Within the first, it first clarifies that the four wisdoms are incomplete, and next reveals that nirvāṇa is unfulfilled. Now stating "therefore arhats and pratyekabuddhas" restates those persons who do not possess the four wisdoms. Question: Why did the preceding text not reveal the pratyekabuddha and only reveal the arhat, whereas here both persons are adduced together? Answer: Truly, because pratyekabuddhas appear in an age without a Buddha, in the present they do not show reliance on the Buddha, though they may have reliance in the past and future; unlike arhats, who rely on the Buddha at all times. Therefore, in the earlier revelation of relying on the Buddha, it did not reveal the pratyekabuddha but only revealed the arhat; now, both persons equally possess these four wisdoms and nirvāṇa, so it adduces both persons together, stripping away their ultimacy: because remaining dharmas of rebirth are not exhausted, the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" is not ultimate. Within this, it first briefly explains the meaning and characteristics of the four wisdoms, and then explains the meaning of the four wisdoms. It is analysed and explained through three gateways: first, explaining the difference between the meaning and object-conditions of the four wisdoms; second, distinguishing them according to the knowledge of the four truths; third, distinguishing them according to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. As for the difference between meaning and object-conditions: in the arhat's wisdom of contemplation on the principle in the stage of non-learning, in thought-moment after thought-moment it completely possesses these four kinds of semantic functions, from "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." Just as a single thought-moment of vigor can diligently sever two unwholesome things and diligently cultivate two wholesome things. However, when the wisdom of contemplation on the principle possessing these four semantic functions is present, there are not the four kinds of object-directed minds; later, when emerging from contemplation into phenomenal matters, there are the four kinds of object-directed minds—taking their own wisdom's capacity as object: "my births are exhausted, the holy life is established, what was to be done has been accomplished, and there is no subsequent rebirth"—yet they lack the four kinds of semantic functions. If discussed within the Mahāyāna, the Buddha and great bodhisattvas contemplate both truths simultaneously without the difference of entering and emerging from contemplation. As for the distinction in meaning: the contemplation of the ultimate truth completely possesses these four semantic functions without the four kinds of object-directed minds; the contemplation of conventional truth has the four kinds of object-directed minds without the four semantic functions. Distinguishing according to the four truths: according to the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra*, "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of origin; "the holy life is established" is the knowledge of the path; "what was to be done has been accomplished" is the knowledge of cessation; and "there is no subsequent rebirth" is the knowledge of suffering. That treatise merely assigns them distinctively to the four truths according to their characteristics; in reality, each and every truth completely possesses these four kinds of semantic functions: "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." As for distinguishing them according to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising: the various masters in the *Vibhāṣā* differ, stating four views. The first says that "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of exhaustion, and the remaining three wisdoms are the knowledge of non-arising. The second says that the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" and the knowledge that "the holy life is established" are the knowledge of exhaustion, and the remaining two are the knowledge of non-arising. The third says that the first three wisdoms are the knowledge of exhaustion, and the fourth is the knowledge of non-arising. In that treatise it asks: there is no arhat who, after two kṣaṇas of the knowledge of exhaustion, generates the knowledge of non-arising; why then are the three wisdoms such as "my births are exhausted" the knowledge of exhaustion? The meaning of this question is: the arhat illuminates the exhaustion of defilements in only a single kṣaṇa, called the knowledge of exhaustion, and the second kṣaṇa is precisely the knowledge of non-arising; how can it be said that the knowledge of exhaustion completely possesses the three wisdoms: "my births are exhausted," "the holy life is established," and "what was to be done has been accomplished"? That treatise answers: although it is a single kṣaṇa, it possesses three meanings, hence it is stated in this way. The fourth says that the four wisdoms such as "my births are exhausted" are neither the knowledge of exhaustion nor the knowledge of non-arising, nor are they [counted among] the knowledge of the ten right views. These are words praising the arhat, saying that for an arhat "my births are exhausted" up to "there is no subsequent rebirth." Saying here that they are not the knowledge of exhaustion, knowledge of non-arising, etc., means they are not distinctively assigned as in the previous three traditions, hence it says "not"; it does not mean they are entirely not so. However, the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising completely possess these four kinds: if one simply says "my births are exhausted," "the holy life is established," "what was to be done has been accomplished," and "there is no subsequent rebirth"—speaking in this way refers to the four wisdoms within the knowledge of exhaustion. If one says "my births are exhausted and will not arise again," "the holy life is established and will not be established again," "what was to be done has been accomplished and will not be accomplished again," and "there is no subsequent rebirth and it will not be undergone again"—speaking in this way refers to the four wisdoms within the knowledge of non-arising. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning origin; according to this text, it is the knowledge of abandoning suffering. Why is this? The *Vibhāṣā* is based on origin being able to bring about rebirth, so "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of abandoning origin. This sūtra states that suffering is of two kinds: first, the suffering of birth-and-death of individual lifetimes; second, the suffering of birth-and-death of inconceivable transformation. Although the two vehicles have severed the suffering of individual lifetimes, transformation still remains; therefore it says "there is a remainder." Because it is not exhausted, in the future there will still be rebirth. Therefore the knowledge that "my births are exhausted" is the knowledge of suffering, because there will still be rebirth in the future. "Because a remainder of the holy life is accomplished, it is not pure" means that "the holy life is established" is not ultimate.

According to the *Vibhāṣā*, "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of cultivating the path; according to this text, it is the wisdom of witnessing cessation. The reason is this: *brahma* is a name for nirvāṇa, and the practice that witnesses the *brahma* is called the brahma-conduct; therefore it is said that "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of cultivating the path. This sūtra takes what is witnessed by the brahma-conduct to be the wisdom of cessation. What is witnessed has two aspects: the first is [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and the second is [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Where [samsāra of] fragmentary [death] is exhausted is its [nirvāṇa] with remainder; where [samsāra of] inconceivable transformation is exhausted is its [nirvāṇa] without remainder. The arhats and pratyekabuddhas have only begun to witness [the nirvāṇa] with remainder; though they have made an attainment, it is commingled with the causes and fruits of transformation, which is termed the brahma-conduct with remainder being accomplished, and therefore it is not pure. Hence "the brahma-conduct has been established" is the wisdom of witnessing cessation.

"Their task is not definitive, and they must have something further to do": their wisdom that "what was to be done has been accomplished" is not definitive. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, this is the wisdom of witnessing cessation; according to this text, it is the wisdom of cultivating the path. The reason is this: according to the *Vibhāṣā*, witnessing and attaining nirvāṇa is called "what was to be done has been accomplished"; therefore "what was to be done has been accomplished" is the wisdom of witnessing cessation. This sūtra explains that the cultivation of the path has two aspects: first, the antidote to fragmentary [death]; second, the antidote to [samsāra of inconceivable] transformation. The two vehicles only cultivate the antidote to fragmentary [death] and have not yet cultivated the rest. Therefore it is said that "their task is not definitive," meaning that because the task of cultivating the path is not definitive, they must have something further to do. Hence in this sūtra it is the wisdom of cultivating the path.

"Because they have not crossed over it, there must be something to sever": their wisdom that "they will not receive further existence" is not definitive. According to the *Vibhāṣā*, this is the wisdom of knowing suffering; if according to this text, it is the wisdom of severing accumulation. The reason is this: the fruition of suffering is "further existence"; hence in the *Vibhāṣā* "not receiving further existence" is the wisdom of knowing suffering. This sūtra explains that accumulation has two kinds: first, the cause of fragmentary [death]; second, the cause of transformation. Although the two vehicles have severed the cause of fragmentary [death], the cause of transformation remains; this is called "not crossing over it," and therefore they must certainly sever it. Hence in this sūtra it is called the wisdom of severing accumulation. If one need not harmonize them, simply relying on the meaning in the *Vibhāṣā* is also acceptable; therefore among the masters of the *Śrīmālā*, there are those who harmonize them and those who do not.

Above, their four wisdoms were stripped away. From "because they have not severed" below, the second part shows that their nirvāṇa is incomplete. "Because they have not severed" reviews what precedes to reveal what follows. In principle it should fully review the four wisdoms, but it merely speaks on the basis of the last one. "Are far from the realm of nirvāṇa" means being far from great parinirvāṇa, properly showing that their nirvāṇa is incomplete. Furthermore, one may say that stripping away the four wisdoms strips away their [nirvāṇa] with remainder, and stripping away nirvāṇa strips away their [nirvāṇa] without remainder.

From "Why is this?" below, the first part above showed that the four wisdoms are not complete and nirvāṇa is not full; here below, the second part explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain them. "Why is this?" is a question: the Tathāgata in the past taught that the two vehicles' four wisdoms are definitive and their nirvāṇa complete; why does he now say they are incomplete? "Only the Tathāgata": this resolves the question. Because they do not accomplish all virtues, the two vehicles' four wisdoms and nirvāṇa are both incomplete. The text has two sections: first, it explains that nirvāṇa is incomplete; second, from "The arhats and pratyekabuddhas, contemplating liberation, [deem] the four wisdoms definitive and obtain a resting place" below, it explains that the former four wisdoms are incomplete.

Regarding the first, in terms of persons there are two, and the text has five pairs. As for the two persons: first, it explains that the Tathāgata attains parinirvāṇa; second, it explains that the arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not attain it. This relies on the Buddha's attainment to reveal their non-attainment. Moreover, wishing to show the place of refuge for the two vehicles, it clarifies the Buddha's attainment. As for the text's five pairs, below there are five rounds explaining that the Tathāgata attains it and the two vehicles do not attain it.

Now first, a general explanation of the overarching meaning of nirvāṇa: this is because since the Buddha's nirvāṇa is clarified here, it is fitting to rely on this passage to explain the overarching meaning of nirvāṇa. Here there are one meaning, two meanings, three meanings, four meanings, and no meaning. As for the four meanings, they are precisely the four kinds of merits herein. As for the three meanings, the five meanings are subsumed into three: the first three phrases explain prajñā; the fourth phrase explains liberation; the fifth phrase explains the dharmakāya. Why these three are clarified is because subsuming the three virtues constitutes overall nirvāṇa. Next, the three are subsumed into two: in the single virtue of liberation, there is no encumbrance that is not exhausted; in the dharmakāya and prajñā, there is no virtue that is not complete. Next, the two phrases are subsumed back into one phrase: that no encumbrance is unexhausted cannot be taken as existence; that no virtue is incomplete cannot be taken as non-existence. Being neither existent nor non-existent is called the single phrase of the middle way. The single phrase returns to no phrase, as the *Lotus [Sūtra]* says: "Definitive nirvāṇa, constantly of the mark of quiescent cessation, ultimately returns to emptiness." "Ultimately returns to emptiness" means that speech ceases and thought is cut off; one cannot speak of nirvāṇa or non-nirvāṇa. As Master Sengzhao's *Treatise on Nirvāṇa* says: "Existence and non-existence are cut off within, designations and discourses are discussed without; the nine currents herein converge, and the host of sages herein darkly unite." Next, from no phrase, phrases arise, as the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* says: "The *tailapāyī* insect does not actually eat oil, but is arbitrarily called an oil-eater. Nirvāṇa is also like this: in reality it has no names or marks, but is arbitrarily spoken of in terms of names and marks." This clarifies that the ultimate truth cannot be spoken of as nirvāṇa or non-nirvāṇa; not knowing how to praise it, one merely forces oneself to praise it as nirvāṇa. If one were to say that nirvāṇa is truly permanent and samsāra impermanent, this would constitute the two views of annihilationism and eternalism, as explained in the chapter below. If it constitutes the two views of annihilationism and eternalism, then samsāra and nirvāṇa are both samsāra. Moreover, if samsāra and nirvāṇa are both affirmed, then samsāra and nirvāṇa are both manifestations of nirvāṇa; therefore one should not definitively grasp that nirvāṇa exists.

Now, the five rounds are divided into two: the first four clarify the four kinds of merits, and the last one is a general conclusion. The first four rounds are: first, the contrast of broad and narrow; second, the contrast of shallow and deep; third, the contrast of coarse and subtle; fourth, the contrast of pure and impure. In each and every pair there are two meanings, three meanings, and four meanings. As for the two meanings: discussed in terms of persons, it is said that the Buddha has nirvāṇa and that the two vehicles lack nirvāṇa. As for the three meanings: first, it explains that the Buddha attains nirvāṇa; next, it explains that the two vehicles do not attain nirvāṇa; third, it harmonizes the teachings. As for the four meanings: first, it explains that the Buddha attains it; second, it explains the reason for the Buddha's attainment; third, it explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain it; fourth, it properly clarifies that the two vehicles do not attain it.

"Only the Tathāgata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddha attains parinirvāṇa": this explains that the Tathāgata alone attains nirvāṇa. *Pari* means entering. "Because he has accomplished all virtues": this exclusively explains the reason why the Buddha accomplishes the attainment of nirvāṇa. Because the Buddha has accomplished all virtues, he attains nirvāṇa. From "The arhats" below, the second phrase shows the reason why the two vehicles do not attain nirvāṇa. "That they are said to attain nirvāṇa": the third harmonizes the former teachings. In reality they do not attain it; it was merely an expedient in the past that spoke of them attaining it.

From "Only the Tathāgata" onwards, this is the second pair, which also has three [parts]: first, it clarifies the Buddha's attainment; "accomplishes immeasurable merit" explains the reason why the Buddha attains it; from "arhats" onwards is the second clause, clarifying that the two vehicles do not attain it; "as for saying that they attain nirvāṇa" is the third, harmonising the teaching. From "Only the Tathāgata" onwards is the third pair, which also has three clauses: first, it clarifies the Buddha's attainment; next, it clarifies that the two vehicles do not attain it; "as for saying that they attain nirvāṇa" is the third, harmonising the teaching. From "Only the Tathāgata" onwards is the fourth pair, which also has three clauses: first, it clarifies the Buddha's attainment; next, it clarifies that the two vehicles do not attain it; third, it harmonises the teaching. First, "all faults that should be severed are severed and eliminated" refers to purification by upāya. "Accomplishing the foremost purity" refers to essential purity. Furthermore, because all faults are severed, all is purified. The *Buddhadhātu-śāstra* distinguishes these four virtues in terms of stages: all merit is at the eighth bhūmi, immeasurable merit is at the ninth bhūmi, inconceivable merit is at the tenth bhūmi, and the merit of the foremost purity is at the Buddha stage. Thus the treatise says: "'All merit' is the stage of the eighth [bhūmi], the Immovable (acalā), because it is free of discrimination, free of leakages, and uninterrupted, spontaneously accomplished, and constantly corresponds to the noble path of the bodhisattva. In the domain of non-objective boundary of the buddhas and tathāgatas, all merits are accomplished. Second, 'immeasurable merit' is the stage of the ninth [bhūmi], Good Intelligence (sādhumatī), because it is capable of subsuming the ocean of countless entrances to samādhi and dhāraṇī, and is that upon which immeasurable wisdom relies; therefore immeasurable merits are all accomplished. Third, 'inconceivable merit' is the stage of the tenth [bhūmi], Cloud of Dharma (dharmameghā), because the secret Dharma-treasuries of all tathāgatas are clearly witnessed and seen, being that upon which wisdom relies; therefore the inconceivable [merits] are all accomplished. Fourth, 'ultimate purity' is because all afflictions, all lingering predispositions (vāsanā), and all obstacles to knowledge are already eliminated; because the wisdom of complete elimination is manifest, the merit of ultimate purity is fully accomplished." Question: Why clarify these four merits? Answer: Because nirvāṇa and these four merits subsume each other and are not separate. Thus the treatise says: "For the sake of sentient beings with the view of self, it is called the dharmakāya; for the sake of perverted sentient beings, it is called the tathāgata; for the sake of bodhisattvas newly embarking on the Mahāyāna, it is called the true reality." These three will be explained later. "For the sake of bodhisattvas of the tenth bhūmi, it is called the Buddha's possession of nirvāṇa, endowed with the four merits." Only the Buddha has the four merits. Previously it was in terms of four persons being endowed with the four; later, only the Buddha has the four; here it is discussed solely with respect to the Buddha. Question: How are these four merits shallower or deeper? Answer: "All" is merely a comprehensive name; its sense remains general. "Immeasurable" is the culmination of count, surpassing the preceding "all". "Inconceivable" transcends conceptual calculation, further surpassing "immeasurable". These three are in terms of the portal of virtues, so there are superior and inferior ones. The fourth is in terms of the portal of severance, clarifying the Buddha's purity in contrast to the impurity of the two vehicles. Masters south of the Yangtze explained the Buddha's possession of the four merits as the meaning of the four wisdoms: the first is the wisdom that my births are exhausted; the second is the wisdom that the brahma-conduct has been established; the third is the wisdom that what was to be done has been accomplished; the fourth is the wisdom that there will be no further becoming. In contrast to the four wisdoms of the two vehicles above, it clarifies that the Buddha has the four wisdoms. From "Only the Tathāgata attains nirvāṇa" onwards is the fifth: first, it concludes by praising the Tathāgata's attainment of nirvāṇa. From "Therefore the arhats" onwards concludes that the two vehicles do not attain it. The textual context is easy to know. As for "gaze up with reverence": beneath the adamantine [stage] is still the rank of sentient beings; the Tathāgata abides as the pinnacle and embodies the ultimate, his path surpassing the practice of the three vehicles and the ten bhūmis, being that which sentient beings of the three vehicles and ten bhūmis gaze up at with reverence. As for "speaking of arhats and pratyekabuddhas observing liberation": below this clarifies that the four wisdoms are not ultimate. Therein, it may be combined into two or divided into four. Combined into two: first, it clarifies that the two vehicles do not attain the four wisdoms; from "if one knows all suffering" onwards, it clarifies that the Tathāgata attains them. Question: It should only clarify that the two vehicles do not attain them; why clarify that the Buddha attains them? Answer: There are two meanings in general: first, adducing the Buddha's attainment reveals their non-attainment; second, it intends to indicate that which the two vehicles enter. Previously, within [the discussion of] nirvāṇa, it first clarified the Buddha's attainment and later distinguished the non-attainment of the two vehicles; here, it first clarifies the non-attainment of the two vehicles and later clarifies the Buddha's attainment—they reveal each other mutually. As for dividing into four: first, it shows that the two vehicles do not attain them; second, from "Why is this? Because there are two kinds of death" onwards, it explains the reason why the two vehicles do not attain them; third, from "if one knows all suffering" onwards, it explains the reason why the Tathāgata attains them; fourth, from "the Tathāgata's genuine siṃhanāda that my births are exhausted" onwards, it explains the Tathāgata's attainment. For the two vehicles, it first clarifies the non-attainment and later clarifies the reason for non-attainment; for the Tathāgata, it first clarifies the reason for attainment and later clarifies the attainment—these are also mutually revealing. In the preceding [discussion of] nirvāṇa, it first clarified the Buddha's attainment and later clarified the reason for attainment; now in [the discussion of] the four wisdoms, it first clarifies the reason for attainment and later clarifies the attainment—this is also mutually revealing. In the nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, it first clarified the reason for non-attainment, and later clarified the non-attainment and the conventional statement of attainment; now in the four wisdoms, it first clarifies the non-attainment and later clarifies the reason for non-attainment. These are also mutually revealing. Clarifying the non-attainment contains two parts: first, citing the Tathāgata's past statements; from "moreover, this is the Tathāgata's upāya" onwards, it harmonises the intent of the Buddha's teaching. Within citing the past statements there are two parts: first, clarifying the culmination of the four wisdoms of the two vehicles; second, from "attaining the resting place", clarifying the culmination of the nirvāṇa of the two vehicles. "Arhats and pratyekabuddhas": these are the persons who attain wisdom. "Observing liberation, the four wisdoms are ultimate": this is the mark of the four wisdoms, the noble wisdom of the non-learner (aśaikṣa). Conditioned liberation—liberation is the actual substance of the four wisdoms. The two vehicles emerge within existence and, observing that liberation, give rise to the thought that the four wisdoms are ultimate; this is called "observing liberation, the four wisdoms are ultimate". "Attaining the resting place" is the second: attaining the culmination of nirvāṇa; being free from fragmentary death (pariccheda-cyuti) is called "reviving" (su); no longer going back and forth among the six destinies is called "resting" (xi). Some say: "observing" relies on the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*, where the realms of the two wisdoms of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna) and non-arising (anutpādajñāna) lie within the four gates. When the two wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising are unfolded, they constitute the four wisdoms. That their realms lie within the four gates means that generally observing the four truths serves as their realm; hence it says "observing". Saying that the realms of the two wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising lie within the four gates means unfolding the wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising to form the four wisdoms, as explained above. Their realms lying within the four gates means: as in saying "suffering has already been known by me" is the wisdom of exhaustion; "it will not be known again" is the wisdom of non-arising. The other three [truths] are also like this. Therefore it says that the realm lies within the four gates. "Liberation" is the stage of liberation of the non-learner.

Because of attaining the four wisdoms, liberation and the four wisdoms are therefore ultimate. In terms of explanation, the four wisdoms of the two vehicles are ultimate and reach the other shore. Some say: this generally concludes and denies the two fruits of with remainder and without remainder. "Observing" is the fruit with remainder. "Liberation" is the fruit without remainder. As for the "four wisdoms": solely because there is observation and the four wisdoms have liberation, one thereby attains rest. The "resting place" is the place of eternal quiescence where the body is turned to ashes and wisdom is extinguished. "Moreover, this is the Tathāgata's upāya" is the second: harmonising the teaching. It is the same as the five pairs above, hence called "moreover". Because upāya is contrasted with reality. In reality they do not attain it, but it is said that they attain it; hence it is called upāya. In comparison with the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra*, these are two kinds of upāya: not yet attaining the four wisdoms while claiming to have the four wisdoms is the upāya of the three carts; not yet attaining the ultimate resting place while regarding oneself as having attained it is the upāya of the conjured city. Furthermore, the first clause corresponds to the teachings of the first two cycles in the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra*, and the latter corresponds to the teaching of the third cycle in the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra*. However, because that text is extensive it opens into three cycles, whereas this text is concise, so it only speaks of one upāya. "With remainder" clarifies that the meaning is not exhaustive, in contrast to the discourse that exhausts the principle. "Non-definitive" (neyārtha) is in contrast to definitive (nītārtha).