勝鬘寶窟 2.62

2.62

「世尊若無明住地不斷」下，第四明斷過無餘。前略明三無餘，今廣明斷過無餘，互其文也。又欲廣彰無明過患，故廣彰斷過無餘。第四斷過無餘之中，前反後順。從初乃至「緣無明地」，反明如來不斷之失；「世尊於此起煩惱」下，順明如來斷之為得。何故須反？為欲舉失彰其得義故。如羝羊鬪，將前更却。二章各兩。初章者，一明由不斷無明故，不得一切佛法；二從「是故無明住地」下，顯無明生一切煩惱、障一切佛法。初又二：一略明不斷無明，不得三事；二廣明不斷無明，不得一切佛法。初段中，若無明地不斷不究竟，返明不斷。不斷無明地體，一向未除，名為不斷。斷猶未窮，名不究竟，不得一味等味。返明不得三事功德，顯果解脫離無明，名為明解脫味。又對二乘灰斷，故以圓覺湛然、體無眾累，謂明解脫。《攝論》云「一味，謂一真如來。」一味就其得，解脫明其離。又諸佛說法意在解脫，故偏明之。第二段中，初「何以故」，徵前起後。何故不斷無明住地，即便不得三事功德。「無明住地不斷」已下，用後釋前。由不斷無明住地，故不得恒沙一切佛法，是故不得三事功德。就文為二：一明不斷無明住地，故恒沙不斷。煩惱多於恒沙邊沙，名過恒沙。煩惱是虛空法，聖所應斷，名為斷法。問：何者是恒沙惑？答：略明二種。一就心麁細分別，住性無知是無明地，於諸法中緣而不了是恒沙惑；二癡妄分別，癡暗之心是無明地，妄取分別是恒沙惑，謂八妄等。不斷不究竟，義同前解。二「過恒沙不斷故」下，明由不斷恒沙惑，故不得過恒沙一切佛法。佛法多於恒河邊沙，名過恒沙。應得不得，明無始解。緣觀相應，名之為得。謂以實相智，觀實相理，故言緣觀相應。應證不證者，明無終證。滅緣觀相應，目之為證，此則內外並冥、緣觀俱寂。又解：不得菩提、不證涅槃，故言應得不得、應證不證。又釋：應得不得，失智；應證不證，失斷。今不以斷德為涅槃，為對二乘智斷不具，故作此說。第二段中，前彰無明能生恒沙，次明恒沙依於無明。前中合有十二句文，初句是總，餘句是別。「是故無明積聚生一切修斷煩惱上煩惱」者，是初總也。「是故」之言，承前顯後。是前不斷無明住地，過恒沙等且不斷故。「無明住地積聚生於一切煩惱」，積聚者，謂從輕之重，品數無極，故云積聚。所生煩惱，應為道治，是故名為修斷煩惱。一切對治道，名修道。覆諸德上，名上煩惱。又起增強，且名為上。又起自根本之上，故名為上。彼生心上煩惱，是其別也。別中前七，能覆因上；後之四句，能覆果上。「彼生心上煩惱」者，覆菩提心。彼無明地生於菩提心上煩惱，於大菩提不知願求，是其相也。舉此能治之心，別所治煩惱，故名生心上煩惱。言上者，顯心所治者是增強煩惱，故名為上。又通言上者，上是諸德之處名也。如物在瓶上住，上第故名為上。有人言：心為萬行之體，覆行則覆心，故云心上煩惱。此句是總，不只局菩提心也。下有六句，覆菩提行。止是定初，觀是慧初，故叡師註《淨名》云「止觀，定慧之根也。」禪與正受，是定行成也。世俗八禪，名之為禪。合理之靜，說為正受。《雜心》云「謂滅盡定名正受。」馥師以四禪為禪，無色為正受。瑤師以諸禪為禪，三三昧為正受。一釋云：以靜為禪，以散為障。一釋云：以靜知為禪，散動無知為障。方便與智，是慧行成。功用之慧，名為方便、實慧名智。菩薩行中略明定慧，止觀是定慧之因，禪與正受是定果，方便與智是慧果。二智障者，或以無知為障、或以偏執為障。下覆果中，果上是總，後三是別。得是功德，力與無畏是佛智慧。又果是涅槃，得是菩提。力無畏等，是菩提別義。又菩提涅槃，智斷不同。力無畏，內外有異。有人言：《十住論》云「菩薩成就堪受等七法。」以菩提為德，七法為果。若就小乘，八賢聖為得，智斷為果。此則人法相對，故有果得不同。此果得等雖不正斷，且有證斷之義，故舉以別煩惱也。又此中直舉能障之惑以彰諸德，不即明諸德即斷此惑也。於此等行不知修習，名為煩惱。上來無明能生恒沙，次顯恒沙依於無明。「過恒沙一切皆依無明住地所建立起」者，以恒沙依無明地得存立也。無明望恒沙有三義：一者無明生恒沙，故是因義；二者有四住種子藉無明而生，故是緣義；三由無明方生恒沙，令恒沙迷境障牽生，故名建立。上來第一反明不斷。從「世尊」已下，第二順佛斷。斷中對前文還有二：一明如來斷無明，故恒沙隨斷，翻上第二；二「如是一切上煩惱斷過恒沙等如來得」下。明由斷恒沙惑，故得恒沙佛法，翻前第一。所以第一翻第二者，由上第二無明生一切惑，是故今明斷無明故一切惑斷。第二翻第一者，上明由不斷無明不得一切佛法，是故斷無明故得一切佛法。初中有三，謂法、譬、合。三文各二。法中二者，一雙牒麁細、二明麁依於細。前中初言「於此起煩惱剎那相應」，彰恒沙惑麁於無明。於此無明起恒沙惑，名於此起。作念而起，名剎那心。作念所起，與心別體，共心相應，名剎那相應。「世尊心不相應無始無明」下，彰無明地細於恒沙。心不相應，翻前相應。無始，翻前剎那心也。久來性成，非作念起，故曰無始無明住地，對前於此起煩惱也。問：前明二種煩惱麁細之相，今何故辨？答：今為欲結如來能斷，故復舉也。又欲明煩惱若麁若細，皆是無明住地所持也。「世尊若復過於恒沙」下，第二麁依於細。「過恒河沙如來菩提智應斷」者，彼恒沙惑，佛應斷也。「一切皆是無明住地所持立」者，彰彼恒沙依無明也。所持者能生，所立者能增長。然四住望無明，悉是無明家起。但就起中，復分住地性成在已者，名四住地。現行於緣，說之為起。然此四種住地性成者，現行緣時，且得說四種現起。即此恒沙起者，性成不行緣時，且得說恒沙住地也。若此四住起正使者，若治斷時，無明不必斷。論其習氣，要斷無明盡，習氣方盡。如《地持》說「十地斷習氣，佛地斷無明。」又四住望恒沙，四住麁、恒沙細，故四住是界內惑，恒沙是界外惑。若通論之，四住、恒沙並是恒沙煩惱。何以得知？如止上煩惱、觀上煩惱等，豈當是恒沙煩惱，非四住煩惱？「譬如一切種子」下，第二譬說。亦二：一明種子依地、二明地壞彼且隨壞。所以作二譬者，欲顯無明是眾惑根本義。以一切惑皆依無明，無明若斷，一切惑斷。「如是過恒沙」下，第三合譬。亦二：初合種子依地譬；「若無明」下，合第二地壞故種子壞也。「如是一切上煩惱」者，自上已來明斷無明，故一切惑斷。今第二斷無明，故一切惑斷，得恒沙功德。翻前第一不斷無明，故不得一切佛法。上有二：一不斷無明，故不得三事；二不斷無明，故不得一切佛法。今翻二即二：初翻第二斷無明，故得恒沙功德；次翻第一斷無明，故得三事功德。所以不次第者，由上明斷無明故一切惑斷，以一切惑斷故得一切佛法，文勢相接故也。次翻第一得三事者，欲顯三事猶屬恒沙功德所攝故也。今前第一明恒沙功德；「一切知見」下，第二明得三事。「一切知見」，得般若也。「離一切惡」，得一切功德法身也。「法王」已下，得解脫也。法王法主，得解脫人，於法自在，故名法王。佛得諸法，故名法主。「而得自在」，是解脫德。於二障中智心無礙，名得自在。登一切法自在之地，是解脫位，解脫山頂名自在。自上已來明佛得智所以也。「如來」下，正明佛得四智。詳文鉤鎖相生，由屬恒沙德攝。若就曲分，上明四智所以，今正明得四智。就文為二：前辨、後結。「如來等覺」，是得智人。「正師子吼」，正明得智。內德難彰，寄言以顯。師子吼，喻說也。所言不怯，名師子吼。「我生已盡」，法說言也。「是故」下，結。是佛具前四種功德，得四智故，正師子吼：我生已盡，梵行已立等。「是故世尊」，結得智人。「以師子吼」，結師子吼。「依於了」下，結我生等。如來四智，究竟窮極，名為了義。於此了義，一向記說我生盡等。彼二乘人，望下言得、望上不得，名兩向說。如來唯有望下說得，名一向記說。林公云：「外國或名說、或名記，此方翻之不悉，故記說兩存。」眾師並云：佛得四智中有二，一者明佛得四智所以、第二正明佛得四智。作此判者，於文不足。若二段皆明四智者，於四無餘中但得知諦無餘耳。以知四諦，故名四智。若爾，便失三無餘意。今詳文大意者，以不斷無明，故不得一切佛法；由斷無明，故得一切佛法。一切佛法，難可具敘，上來略明四種無餘，乃至最後明得恒沙佛法及四智等也。略寄四智一條，如上所判文也。

From “World-Honoured One, if the stage of ignorance is not severed” onwards, the fourth section explains that the eradication of faults is without remainder. Previously, the three aspects without remainder were briefly explained; here, the eradication of faults without remainder is explained extensively, the texts complementing each other. Furthermore, in order to extensively reveal the faults and perils of ignorance, the eradication of faults without remainder is extensively revealed. Within this fourth section on the eradication of faults without remainder, there is first an indirect approach and then a direct approach. From the beginning up to “conditioned by the ground of ignorance,” it indirectly explains the Tathāgata’s fault of non-severance; from “World-Honoured One, regarding these arising afflictions” onwards, it directly explains the Tathāgata’s attainment through severance. Why is an indirect approach necessary? It is because in order to bring out the meaning of attainment, the fault must first be cited—just as when rams butt heads, one steps back before moving forward. The two sections each have two parts. In the first section: first, it explains that because of not severing ignorance, one does not attain all dharmas of the Buddha; second, from “Therefore, the stage of ignorance…” onwards, it reveals that ignorance generates all afflictions and obstructs all dharmas of the Buddha. The first part also has two aspects: first, it briefly explains that by not severing ignorance, one does not attain the three things; second, it extensively explains that by not severing ignorance, one does not attain all dharmas of the Buddha. In the first subdivision, “if the ground of ignorance is not severed and not exhausted” indirectly explains non-severance. Not severing the substance of the ground of ignorance, being utterly unremoved, is called “not severed.” Severance not yet being complete is called “not exhausted.” “Does not attain the single flavor, etc., flavor” indirectly explains not attaining the merits of the three things; revealing the fruit of liberation as free from ignorance is called the flavor of clear liberation. Furthermore, in contrast to the ash-like extinction of the two vehicles, complete enlightenment being serene and its substance devoid of the manifold burdens is called clear liberation. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: “The single flavor refers to the one suchness, the Tathāgata.” “Single flavor” is said in terms of attainment; “liberation” clarifies its detachment. Furthermore, when the Buddhas expound the Dharma, their intent is on liberation; therefore, it is specifically highlighted. In the second subdivision, first, “Why is that?” interrogates what precedes to introduce what follows: why is it that if one does not sever the stage of ignorance, one immediately does not attain the merits of the three things? From “the stage of ignorance is not severed” onwards, the subsequent is used to explain the preceding: because the stage of ignorance is not severed, one does not attain all the Buddha dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges; therefore, one does not attain the merits of the three things. In terms of the text, there are two parts: first, it explains that because the stage of ignorance is not severed, the sands of the Ganges are not severed. Afflictions more numerous than the sands on the banks of the Ganges are called “exceeding the sands of the Ganges.” Afflictions are hollow and false dharmas, which should be severed by the noble ones, hence called “dharmas to be severed.” Question: What are the delusions [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges? Answer: They are briefly explained as two kinds: first, distinguishing according to the coarse and subtle aspects of the mind, the fundamental unknowing of the abiding nature is the ground of ignorance, while cognitively conditioning objects among phenomena without clear comprehension is the delusion [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges; second, distinguishing between delusion and false conceptualisation, the darkened mind of delusion is the ground of ignorance, while false grasping and conceptualisation are the delusions [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, namely the eight false conceptualisations, and so forth. “Not severed and not exhausted” has the same meaning as explained before. Second, from “because what exceeds the sands of the Ganges is not severed” onwards, it explains that because delusions [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges are not severed, one does not attain all Buddha dharmas exceeding the sands of the Ganges. The Buddha dharmas are more numerous than the sands on the banks of the Ganges, hence called “exceeding the sands of the Ganges.” “What should be attained is not attained” clarifies the absence of beginningless understanding. The correspondence of cognitive conditioning and contemplation is called “attainment.” That is, contemplating the principle of true reality with the wisdom of true reality is called “the correspondence of cognitive conditioning and contemplation.” “What should be realized is not realized” clarifies the absence of final realization. The cessation of the correspondence of cognitive conditioning and contemplation is designated “realization”; this means that inside and outside are both obscured, and conditioning and contemplation are both tranquil. Another explanation: because one does not attain bodhi and does not realize nirvāṇa, it is said that what should be attained is not attained, and what should be realized is not realized. Yet another explanation: “what should be attained is not attained” is the loss of wisdom; “what should be realized is not realized” is the loss of severance. Here, severance-virtue is not taken as nirvāṇa; this statement is made in contrast to the two vehicles lacking completeness of wisdom and severance. In the second subdivision, it first reveals that ignorance can generate [delusions as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, and next clarifies that [the delusions of] the sands of the Ganges depend on ignorance. In the former, there are twelve phrases in total; the first phrase is general, and the remaining phrases are specific. “Therefore, ignorance accumulated generates all the primary afflictions to be severed by cultivation” is the initial general statement. The words “Therefore” inherit what precedes and manifest what follows: it refers to the aforementioned non-severance of the stage of ignorance, and that those exceeding the sands of the Ganges are not yet severed. “The stage of ignorance accumulated generates all afflictions”: “accumulated” means from light to heavy, the categories being limitless, hence called “accumulated.” The afflictions generated should be countered by the path; therefore, they are called “afflictions to be severed by cultivation.” All countering paths are called the “path of cultivation.” Veiling the various virtues, they are called “primary afflictions” (upakleśa). Moreover, arising with increasing strength, they are tentatively called “primary.” Moreover, arising on top of the root, they are called “primary.” “Primary afflictions on the arising of mind” are the specific ones. Among the specifics, the first seven can veil the cause; the latter four phrases can veil the fruit. “Primary afflictions on the arising of mind” veils the bodhicitta. That ground of ignorance generates afflictions on the bodhicitta, and not knowing to make vows and seek great bodhi is its mark. Citing this countering mind to distinguish the afflictions to be countered is called “primary afflictions on the arising of mind.” Speaking of “on,” it reveals that what the mind counters are afflictions of increased strength, hence called “on.” Moreover, generally speaking of “on,” “on” is a designation for the locus of the various virtues. Just as an object rests on a vase, being on top, it is called “on.” Some say: mind is the substance of the myriad practices; veiling the practices veils the mind, hence it is called “primary afflictions on the mind.” This phrase is general, not restricted only to bodhicitta. Below are six phrases that veil the practice of bodhi. Śamatha is the beginning of concentration, and vipaśyanā is the beginning of wisdom; therefore, Master Rui’s commentary on the *Vimalakīrti* says: “Śamatha and vipaśyanā are the roots of concentration and wisdom.” Dhyāna and samāpatti are the perfection of the practice of concentration. The mundane eight dhyānas are called dhyāna. Quietude according with principle is spoken of as samāpatti. The *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says: “The cessation concentration is called samāpatti.” Master Fu takes the four dhyānas as dhyāna, and the formless [attainments] as samāpatti. Master Yao takes the various dhyānas as dhyāna, and the three samādhis as samāpatti. One explanation says: quietude is dhyāna, and distraction is the obstacle. Another explanation says: quiet knowing is dhyāna, and agitated unknowing is the obstacle. Upāya and wisdom are the perfection of the practice of wisdom. Wisdom with effort is called upāya; real wisdom is called wisdom. Among the practices of a bodhisattva, concentration and wisdom are briefly explained: śamatha and vipaśyanā are the causes of concentration and wisdom, dhyāna and samāpatti are the fruits of concentration, and upāya and wisdom are the fruits of wisdom. The obstacles to the two wisdoms are either taken to have unknowing as the obstacle, or biased grasping as the obstacle. Below, in veiling the fruit, “on the fruit” is general, and the latter three are specific. “Attainment” is merit; “powers and fearlessnesses” are the Buddha’s wisdom. Furthermore, the fruit is nirvāṇa, and attainment is bodhi. The powers and fearlessnesses, etc., are specific aspects of bodhi. Moreover, bodhi and nirvāṇa differ in wisdom and severance. The powers and fearlessnesses have internal and external differences. Some say: the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* says: “The bodhisattva accomplishes the seven dharmas such as receptivity.” It takes bodhi as virtue and the seven dharmas as fruit. If in terms of Hīnayāna, the eight noble persons are attainment, and wisdom and severance are the fruit. This is a pairing of person and dharma, so there is the difference between fruit and attainment. Although these fruits and attainments are not directly severed, they tentatively hold the sense of verifying severance; therefore, they are cited to distinguish afflictions. Furthermore, here it merely cites the obstructing delusions to reveal the various virtues, not directly explaining that the virtues immediately sever these delusions. Unknowing regarding the cultivation and practice of these practices is called affliction. Above, ignorance can generate [delusions as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges; next, it reveals that the sands of the Ganges depend on ignorance. “All exceeding the sands of the Ganges are established and arise depending on the stage of ignorance” means that the sands of the Ganges obtain sustenance and establishment dependent on the ground of ignorance. In relation to the sands of the Ganges, ignorance has three meanings: first, ignorance generates the sands of the Ganges, hence it is the meaning of cause; second, there are seeds of the four stages that arise relying on ignorance, hence it is the meaning of condition; third, only due to ignorance are the sands of the Ganges generated, causing the sands of the Ganges to be confused about objects and to draw forth birth through obstacles, hence called “establishment.” Above is the first part, indirectly explaining non-severance. From “World-Honoured One” onwards is the second part, directly explaining the Buddha’s severance. Within severance, in relation to the preceding text, there are also two parts: first, it explains that because the Tathāgata severs ignorance, the sands of the Ganges are severed accordingly, reversing the second part above; second, from “when all such primary afflictions are severed, exceeding the sands of the Ganges, etc., the Tathāgata attains…” onwards, it explains that by severing the delusions [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, one attains Buddha dharmas [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, reversing the first part above. Why does the first reverse the second? Because in the second part above, ignorance generates all delusions; therefore, it now explains that because ignorance is severed, all delusions are severed. Why does the second reverse the first? Above, it explained that because ignorance is not severed, one does not attain all Buddha dharmas; therefore, because ignorance is severed, one attains all Buddha dharmas. In the first part there are three: namely, dharma, metaphor, and application of the metaphor. The three passages each have two aspects. In the dharma, the two are: first, a paired restatement of the coarse and subtle; second, explaining that the coarse depends on the subtle. In the former, first saying “afflictions arising regarding this, associated with a single mind-instant” reveals that the delusions of the sands of the Ganges are coarser than ignorance. Generating the delusions of the sands of the Ganges regarding this ignorance is called “arising regarding this.” Arising by forming a thought is called a “momentary mind.” What arises by forming a thought, being of a different substance from the mind and associated with the mind, is called “associated with a single mind-instant.” From “World-Honoured One, the beginningless ignorance unassociated with mind…” onwards, it reveals that the ground of ignorance is subtler than the sands of the Ganges. “Unassociated with mind” reverses the preceding “associated.” “Beginningless” reverses the preceding “momentary mind.” Having become nature over a long time and not arising by forming a thought, it is called “the ground of beginningless ignorance,” contrasted with the preceding “afflictions arising regarding this.” Question: Earlier the marks of coarse and subtle of the two kinds of afflictions were already explained; why distinguish them now? Answer: Now, in order to conclude that the Tathāgata can sever them, they are cited again. Furthermore, it is to explain that whether afflictions are coarse or subtle, they are all sustained by the stage of ignorance. From “World-Honoured One, if further exceeding the sands of the Ganges…” onwards is the second aspect, the coarse depending on the subtle. “Exceeding the sands of the Ganges, which should be severed by the Tathāgata’s bodhi-wisdom”: those delusions of the sands of the Ganges should be severed by the Buddha. “All are sustained and established by the stage of ignorance” reveals that those sands of the Ganges depend on ignorance. “Sustained” means able to generate; “established” means able to increase and develop. However, in relation to ignorance, the four stages all arise from ignorance. Yet within what arises, further distinguishing that which has become one’s nature and abides within oneself is called the “four stages.” Operating actively in relation to conditions is spoken of as “arising.” However, when these four whose nature has become established operate actively in relation to conditions, they may tentatively be said to be the four kinds of active arisings. And when these that arise as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, having become nature, do not operate in relation to conditions, they may tentatively be said to be the stages of the sands of the Ganges. If these four stages give rise to primary defilements, when they are severed by the counteracting path, ignorance is not necessarily severed. As for their traces (vāsanā), ignorance must be completely severed before the traces are completely exhausted. As the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: “The ten grounds sever the traces, and the Buddha ground severs ignorance.” Furthermore, in relation to the sands of the Ganges, the four stages are coarse, and the sands of the Ganges are subtle; thus the four stages are delusions within the three realms, and the sands of the Ganges are delusions beyond the three realms. If discussed generally, both the four stages and the sands of the Ganges are afflictions [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges. How is this known? For instance, how could the primary afflictions on śamatha, the primary afflictions on vipaśyanā, and so forth, only be afflictions of the sands of the Ganges and not afflictions of the four stages? From “Just as all seeds…” onwards is the second part, the metaphorical explanation. It also has two: first, explaining that seeds depend on the earth; second, explaining that if the earth is destroyed, they are destroyed along with it. Why make two metaphors? It is to reveal that ignorance is the root of all delusions. Because all delusions depend on ignorance, if ignorance is severed, all delusions are severed. From “In this way, exceeding the sands of the Ganges…” onwards is the third part, the application of the metaphor. It also has two: first, applying the metaphor of seeds depending on the earth; from “If ignorance…” onwards, applying the second, that because the earth is destroyed, the seeds are destroyed. “All such primary afflictions”: from the above onwards, it explained that because ignorance is severed, all delusions are severed. Now, second, because ignorance is severed and thus all delusions are severed, one attains merits [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges. This reverses the first part above: because ignorance is not severed, one does not attain all Buddha dharmas. Above there were two: first, because ignorance is not severed, one does not attain the three things; second, because ignorance is not severed, one does not attain all Buddha dharmas. Now, reversing the two also gives two: first, reversing the second, because ignorance is severed, one attains merits [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges; next, reversing the first, because ignorance is severed, one attains the merits of the three things. Why are they not in sequence? Because above it explained that by severing ignorance all delusions are severed, and because all delusions are severed one attains all Buddha dharmas, so the textual momentum connects them. Next reversing the first to attain the three things is because it wishes to reveal that the three things are still subsumed under the merits [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges. Now, the first explains the merits [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges; from “all knowledge and vision” onwards, the second explains attaining the three things. “All knowledge and vision” is attaining prajñā. “Free from all evil” is attaining the dharmakāya of all merits. From “Dharmarāja” onwards is attaining liberation. Dharmarāja, master of the Dharma, is the person who attains liberation; being sovereign regarding dharmas, he is called Dharmarāja. The Buddha attains all dharmas, hence he is called the master of the Dharma. “And attains sovereignty” is the virtue of liberation. Being unhindered in the mind of wisdom regarding the two obstacles is called attaining sovereignty. Ascending to the stage of sovereignty in all dharmas is the rank of liberation; the peak of the mountain of liberation is called sovereignty. From above onwards, it explains the reason why the Buddha attains wisdom. From “The Tathāgata…” onwards directly explains that the Buddha attains the four wisdoms. Examining the text, they are linked and arise mutually, still being subsumed under the merits [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges. If dividing it specifically, the above explained the reason for the four wisdoms, while this directly explains attaining the four wisdoms. In terms of the text, there are two: first, distinguishing, and second, concluding. “The Tathāgata, the Equamously Enlightened One” is the person who attains wisdom. “Truly roars the lion’s roar” directly explains attaining wisdom. Internal virtues are difficult to display, so words are employed to manifest them. The lion’s roar is an illustrative explanation; speech that is fearless is called a lion’s roar. “My births are exhausted” is the statement of the Dharma explanation. From “Therefore…” onwards is the conclusion: because the Buddha is endowed with the preceding four kinds of merits and attains the four wisdoms, he truly roars the lion’s roar: “My births are exhausted, the holy life has been established,” and so forth. “Therefore, World-Honoured One” concludes the person who attains wisdom. “With the lion’s roar” concludes the lion’s roar. From “relying on the definitive meaning…” onwards concludes “my births,” etc. The four wisdoms of the Tathāgata, being ultimate and supreme, are called the definitive meaning. Based on this definitive meaning, he solely predicts and declares “my births are exhausted,” and so forth. As for the persons of the two vehicles, looking downward they speak of attainment, and looking upward of non-attainment, which is called speaking in two directions. The Tathāgata only speaks of attainment looking downward, which is called solely predicting and declaring. Venerable Lin says: “In foreign countries it is sometimes called speaking (śāsana/vacana) and sometimes called predicting/declaring (vyākaraṇa); in this land the translation was not exhaustive, so both ‘predicting’ and ‘declaring’ are retained.” The various masters all say: within the Buddha’s attainment of the four wisdoms there are two: first, explaining the reason why the Buddha attains the four wisdoms; second, directly explaining that the Buddha attains the four wisdoms. Making this judgment falls short regarding the text. If both sections explain the four wisdoms, then among the four without remainder, one would only know the knowledge of the truths without remainder. Because of knowing the four truths, they are called the four wisdoms. If so, then the intent of the three [other aspects] without remainder would be lost. Now, examining the general intent of the text: because of not severing ignorance, one does not attain all Buddha dharmas; because of severing ignorance, one attains all Buddha dharmas. It is difficult to describe all Buddha dharmas completely; above, the four aspects without remainder were briefly explained, culminating at the end in explaining the attainment of Buddha dharmas [as numerous as] the sands of the Ganges, the four wisdoms, and so forth. Merely lodging it in the single item of the four wisdoms is as judged in the text above.