俱舍論疏 27.27

27.27

論「如何於智至體即是智」，此釋無畏。但是無怖非是智也，以智成故說名為智。《正理論》亦同，故彼論云「理實應然，但為顯示無畏以智為親近因，是故就智出無畏體。夫無畏者謂不怯懼，由有智故不怯懼他，故智得為無畏因性。唯佛四妙智是四無畏因，謂諸如來於一切法、一切相妙智，是初無畏因。若諸如來一切煩惱并習氣斷妙智，是第二因。若諸如來知弟子眾有損有益妙智，是後二無畏因（已上論文，同此論文）。或無畏體即四妙智。怯懼名畏，此即於法無所了達，懷恐怖義起於此畏。有近治能與畏相違，故名無畏。豈不非無智即是畏體，如何說智體即是無畏（述云：此中難意，畏既非無智，如何無畏智為體耶）？此責不然。智與多法為近治故，如即無疑。謂智如能近治無智，亦於怖畏有近治能，故得智名亦名無畏。如治無智亦能治疑，故得智名亦名決定。所治無智雖不即疑，而智、無疑名二體一。如是無智雖與畏殊，而無畏名即目智體，一善能斷多惡法故。有說：無智亦攝畏體，故於此中不應為難。問：力與無畏有何差別？答：此無差別，體俱智故。然於智體別義名力，復依別義立無畏名。謂不屈因說名為力，不怯懼因說名無畏（云云多釋）」，廣如彼論。

On the Śāstra's 'How is it that regarding knowledge... their essence is just knowledge': this explains fearlessness. It is simply freedom from fright, not knowledge itself; but because it is accomplished through knowledge, it is termed knowledge. The Nyāyānusāra is also in agreement, stating: 'In principle it must indeed be so. Yet, in order to show that fearlessness takes knowledge as its immediate proximate cause, the essence of fearlessness is identified in terms of knowledge. Now, fearlessness means not being timid or frightened; because one possesses knowledge, one is not timid or frightened of others, and therefore knowledge can serve as the causal nature of fearlessness. Only the four wonderful knowledges of the Buddha are the causes of the four fearlessnesses: the Tathāgatas' wonderful knowledge of all dharmas and all aspects is the cause of the first fearlessness; the Tathāgatas' wonderful knowledge of the abandonment of all defilements together with residual traces is the cause of the second; and the Tathāgatas' wonderful knowledge of what harms and what benefits the assembly of disciples is the cause of the latter two fearlessnesses (the Śāstra passage cited above matches this Śāstra's text). Or alternatively, the essence of fearlessness is itself the four wonderful knowledges. Timidity is called fear; this means having no clear realization regarding dharmas, harbor fear and terror, and thus this fear arises. There is a proximate counteragent capable of opposing fear, and hence it is called fearlessness. [Objection:] Is it not the case that absence of knowledge is not the essence of fear? How then can one say that the essence of knowledge is itself fearlessness? (The author notes: The meaning of the objection here is: since fear is not itself non-knowledge, how can the essence of fearlessness be knowledge?) This criticism is not correct. Knowledge acts as a proximate counteragent to multiple phenomena, just as it is with freedom from doubt. That is, just as knowledge can serve as the proximate counteragent to non-knowledge, it also possesses the power of being the proximate counteragent to fright and fear; hence it receives the name "knowledge" and is also called "fearlessness." Just as it counteracts non-knowledge and is also able to counteract doubt—and thus receives the name "knowledge" and is also called "decisiveness"—so too, although the non-knowledge to be counteracted is not itself doubt, knowledge and freedom from doubt are two names with one essence. In this way, although non-knowledge is distinct from fear, the name "fearlessness" directly designates the essence of knowledge, because a single wholesome dharma can cut off multiple unwholesome dharmas. Some say: non-knowledge also encompasses the essence of fear, and therefore one should not raise an objection here. Question: What distinction is there between power and fearlessness? Answer: There is no distinction between them, as their essence is equally knowledge. However, based on different meanings regarding the essence of knowledge, one is named "power," and again according to a different meaning the name "fearlessness" is established: the cause of not yielding is called power, and the cause of not being timid or frightened is called fearlessness (and there are many such explanations),' as fully stated in that treatise.