一　法苑義鏡五巻 - 翻刻

翻刻

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
七〇【但し算用数字】
【枠外右横上】
法苑義鏡　二諦章
【枠外右横下】
七〇
【二段構成】
【上段】
隨＿レ位皆修￣スルカ故云＿二修行＿一。次求果者。卽所＿二趣求＿一智斷二
果。後知境者。卽所應知三性三無生等境。故攝大乘說＿二 三
性等＿一名＿二所應知＿一。今此文中￣ニハ。說＿二￣カ初￣ノ二位＿一故￣ニ。云＿二資粮
及方便道＿一初斷障中。唯伏非＿レ斷。故云＿二厭捨＿一。次修行中。唯
修＿二有漏六度等行＿一。故云＿二修習＿一。次求果中。初資粮位求＿二解
脫果＿一。後加行位求＿二決擇果＿一。故云＿二進趣＿一。後知境中。依＿二相似
觀＿一。了＿二-知￣スルカ三性有無之義＿一。故云＿二了知＿一。非安立中。雖＿レ非＿二
法無＿一。而不＿レ可＿レ說＿二￣ク爲￣リ＿レ因爲￣ルト＿一レ果。心言絕故。若無＿二俗諦＿一。
由＿レ何菩薩逕＿二於五位＿一。修＿二￣ン淸淨行＿一。由此勝利非安立外。
後說＿二安立＿一【。：脱落？】
文問若行有。至＿二而能斷惑＿一者。此亦據＿二￣ル論文＿一答文有。極
善定心￣ヨリ。至＿二應得解脫究竟淸淨＿一者。是論文也。以有相
心￣ヨリ。至＿二竟有何別＿一者。章家釋文也。又世出世道二種有
殊者。是論文也。故行有相不得解脫等下。章家釋文也。於
順決擇分善法中轉緣諸諦時等者。大乘基意。卽依＿二此文＿一。
證＿三世第一法通＿二￣コトヲ多刹那＿一。故大賢師￣ノ金光明經古迹記
中。破＿二大乘基＿一云。已得＿二決擇＿一。何位《割書：考#1位一｜本無》廻心￣スルヤ。基云
【下段】
通＿レ 四。以＿二大乘宗￣ノ世第一法多刹那＿一故。彼何爲￣ストナレハ＿レ證。
緣＿二諸諦＿一故。不＿レ應＿三￣ラ頓￣ニ作＿二￣ス諸諦行＿一故者非也。違＿三對法云＿二
一刹那＿一故。前《割書：考#1前｜恐斯》念不＿レ能＿二無間￣ニ入＿一レ聖。應＿下如＿二煗等＿一非＿中第
一＿上。故由＿レ此第四無＿二廻心義＿一。今救＿レ之云。對法論《割書：考#1法九初同疏｜八[十一左]#2》
云＿二 一刹那＿一者。隨轉理門故不＿二相違＿一。由此證知無分別智
定無相分而能斷惑者。成唯識論第九卷中三師說。一云
此智二分俱無。一云相見俱有。第三師云。見有￣テ相￣ハ無。今
遮＿二前二＿一。證＿二第三正＿一故云＿二由此證知＿一。
文問但立一。至＿二說二亦爾＿一者。此下有＿二 二問答＿一。竝章家文
也。攝行歸眞惣立一諦行者。有爲行法也。眞者如來藏眞
理也。卽釋＿二勝鬘經一諦章意＿一。言＿二 一諦＿一者。四聖諦中三是
世俗。唯一是眞。眞諦唯一故名＿二 一諦＿一。卽彼經意。據＿二如來
藏擇滅諦義＿一。六十四中。說＿二俗四重眞唯一諦＿一。今眞俗相
對而立＿二 二諦＿一。仁王經中。說￣モ＿レ 二￣ト亦爾。卽指＿二彼經上卷二
諦品意＿一。廣如＿二彼說＿一。
文若隨人法。至＿二皆有三種＿一者。𣵀槃十三。隨＿二智淺深及法
勝劣＿一。亦說＿二 二諦＿一。如＿二前已說＿一。或俗及眞皆有二諦者。知＿二眞
【左頁】
【枠外左上】
七一【但し算用数字】
【枠外左横上】
法苑義鏡　二諦章
【枠外左横下】
七一
【二段構成】
【上段】
俗諦＿一。各《割書：〻》有＿二惣別＿一。惣相而知。名爲＿二 中智＿一。別相而知。名爲＿二
上智＿一。若眞若俗。中智所知。名爲＿二世諦＿一。若眞若俗。上智所
知￣ヲ。名＿二第一義＿一。故眞俗中。皆有＿二 二諦＿一。若以空及事理等
者。卽顯揚《割書：考#1顯揚全文無若｜四右已下意歟》論第十六中。說＿二 三性等＿一。初遍計
性名＿レ空。次依他起名＿レ事。後圓成實名＿レ理。卽與＿二 中邊假行
顯＿一同。謂遍計性無＿二實性＿一故。名＿二假世諦＿一。依他起性￣ハ從緣
所生￣ノ有爲行￣ナルカ故名＿二行世俗＿一。圓成實性￣ハ體是眞如。雖＿レ
名＿二顯了＿一。待＿レ他而顯。名＿二顯了世俗＿一。此明＿三世俗有＿二￣ルコト 三差
別＿一。言＿二義得行＿一者。明＿三其勝義亦有＿二 三種＿一。一義勝義。謂彼
眞如勝智之境義。二得勝義。𣵀槃爲＿レ體。勝卽義故。三行
勝義。聖道爲＿レ體。此聖道行用＿二眞如勝法＿一爲＿二境義＿一。名＿二行
勝義＿一。今云＿二 二諦之中皆有三種＿一者。俗有＿二假等三＿一。眞有＿二義
等三＿一。故云＿二皆有三種＿一。廣如＿二 中邊第二卷說＿一。
文若以諸法至＿二故非增減＿一者。諸法有無事理等者。如＿二前
已說＿一。又瑜伽釋云等者。第三十六卷眞實義品文意也。故
彼文云。眞實義略有＿二 二種＿一。一者依如所有性諸法眞實性。
二者依盡所有性諸法一切性。乃至云。此眞實義復有＿二 四
【下段】
種＿一。一者世間極成眞實。乃至。第四所知障淨智所行眞
實。今取意引。故云＿二世間所成等＿一。　解云。敎詮眞諦。名＿二如
所有性＿一。敎詮俗諦。名＿二盡所有性＿一。旣云＿三此二有＿二 四眞實＿一。明
知￣ル。世俗勝義。皆有＿二世間所成等四＿一。故二諦中。各有＿二 四
重＿一言＿二世間所成＿一者。若依＿二勝義四重＿一說者。謂世間世俗惠
所知￣ナリ。地唯是地￣ニシテ非＿二火等＿一。此地名爲＿二眞實＿一。世間道
理。其性不＿レ虛。故名＿二眞實＿一。卽蘊等是。若依＿二世俗四重＿一說
者。法體未＿二必有＿一。一切世間。共許言說執＿二之有＿一。故卽實我
法瓶盆等。是餘之三重￣ナリ。如＿二無垢疏《割書：考#1無垢疏一｜[二十四丁]#2》第一廣說＿一。
由是世俗及勝義諦各分四種等者。章家文也【。：脱落？】　問。疏
《割書：考#1唯識疏一｜本七三右》第一云。前四世俗。如＿二瑜伽論六十四中。顯揚六
說＿一。名字雖￣トモ＿レ別。諸論亦有＿二其￣ノ四眞諦＿一。若義若名。非＿二諸
論有￣ルニ＿一。唯此論￣ニノミ釋。如＿二第九卷＿一。旣云＿下其四眞諦。若義
若名。非＿二諸論有＿一。唯此論釋＿上。如何今瑜伽釋￣シテ。云＿三￣フヤ世俗
勝義皆有＿二世間所成等四【＿一：脱落？】。　解云。餘論惣合而說＿二眞四＿一。此
論別開而說＿二眞四＿一。今約＿二名義＿一開而別說。故云＿二唯此論
釋＿一。

現代語訳

【右頁】
【枠外右上】
七〇
【枠外右横上】
法苑義鏡　二諦章
【枠外右横下】
七〇

【上段】
位に随って皆修するが故に「修行」と云う。次に「求果」とは、すなわち趣求するところの智・断の二果である。後の「知境」とは、すなわち応に知るべき三性・三無生等の境である。故に『摂大乗論』は三性等を説いて「所応知」と名づける。今この文の中では、初の二位を説くが故に、「資糧及び方便道」と云う。初の断障の中では、唯伏するのみで断ではない。故に「厭捨」と云う。次の修行の中では、唯有漏の六度等の行を修するのみである。故に「修習」と云う。次の求果の中では、初の資糧位では解脱果を求め、後の加行位では決択果を求める。故に「進趣」と云う。後の知境の中では、相似観に依って三性の有無の義を了知する。故に「了知」と云う。非安立の中では、法が無いわけではないが、因となりまたは果となると説くことはできない。心言絶するが故である。もし俗諦がなければ、何によって菩薩が五位を経て清浄行を修するのか。この勝利によって、非安立の外に、後に安立を説く。

「問：もし行に有〜而も能く惑を断ず」について。これもまた論文に拠って答える。「極善定心より〜応に解脱究竟清浄を得べし」までは、これは論の文である。「有相心より〜竟に何の別かあらん」までは、章家の釈文である。また「世出世道の二種に殊有り」とは、これは論の文である。故に「行に有相ありては解脱を得ず」等以下は、章家の釈文である。「順決択分の善法の中に転じて諸諦を縁ずる時」等とは、大乗基の意であって、すなわちこの文に依って、世第一法が多刹那に通ずることを証する。故に大賢師の『金光明経古迹記』の中に、大乗基を破して云う。「既に決択を得たならば、何の位において廻心するのか」と。基が云う、

（考：「位」は一本では無し）

【下段】
「四に通ずる。大乗宗の世第一法は多刹那であるが故に」と。彼は何を証とするのかといえば、「諸諦を縁ずるが故に、頓に諸諦行を作すべからずが故に」と言うのは誤りである。『対法』に「一刹那」と云うに違するが故に。前念は無間に聖に入ることができない。応に煗等の如く第一でないべきである。故にこれによって第四には廻心の義はない。今これを救って云う。「『対法論』に『一刹那』と云うのは、随転理門によるが故に相違しない」と。

（考：「法」の後、九は初同疏八〔十一左〕）

これによって「無分別智は定めて相分なくして能く惑を断ずることを証知す」とは、『成唯識論』第九巻の中の三師説による。一に云う、この智は二分ともに無い。一に云う、相・見ともに有る。第三師が云う、見は有って相は無い。今は前の二を遮して、第三の正説を証するが故に「由此証知」と云う。

「問：ただ一を立て〜二を説くも亦爾り」について。この以下に二問答がある。並びに章家の文である。「行を摂して真に帰し、惣じて一諦を立つ」とは、行とは有為の行法である。真とは如来蔵の真理である。すなわち『勝鬘経』の一諦章の意を釈する。「一諦」と言うのは、四聖諦の中の三は世俗であり、唯一つのみが真である。真諦は唯一であるが故に「一諦」と名づける。すなわち彼の経の意である。如来蔵の択滅諦の義に拠る。六十四の中では、「俗は四重、真は唯一諦」と説く。今は真俗相対して二諦を立てる。『仁王経』の中にも二と説くも亦爾りである。すなわち彼の経の上巻の二諦品の意を指す。広くは彼の説の如し。

「もし人法に随えば〜皆三種有り」について。『涅槃』十三は、智の浅深及び法の勝劣に随って、また二諦を説く。前に既に説いた如くである。「或いは俗及び真に皆二諦有り」とは、真

【左頁】
【枠外左上】
七一
【枠外左横上】
法苑義鏡　二諦章
【枠外左横下】
七一

【上段】
俗の諦を知って、各々惣・別有り。惣相によって知ることを「中智」と名づける。別相によって知ることを「上智」と名づける。真においても俗においても、中智の知るところを「世諦」と名づける。真においても俗においても、上智の知るところを「第一義」と名づける。故に真・俗の中に皆二諦がある。「もし空及び事理等を以ってすれば」とは、すなわち

（考：『顕揚』全文では「若」なし。四右以下の意か）

『顕揚論』第十六の中で三性等を説く。初の遍計性を「空」と名づける。次の依他起を「事」と名づける。後の円成実を「理」と名づける。すなわち『中辺〔論〕』・「仮行顕」と同じである。すなわち遍計性は実性がないが故に「仮世諦」と名づける。依他起性は縁より生じた有為の行であるが故に「行世俗」と名づける。円成実性は体がこれ真如であって、「顕了」と名づけるけれども、他を待って顕れる。「顕了世俗」と名づける。これは世俗に三種の差別があることを明かす。「義・得・行」と言うのは、勝義にも三種あることを明かす。一に「義勝義」とは、彼の真如が勝智の境義であることを謂う。二に「得勝義」とは、涅槃を体とする。勝はすなわち義であるが故に。三に「行勝義」とは、聖道を体とする。この聖道は真如勝法を境義として用いる。「行勝義」と名づける。今「二諦の中に皆三種有り」と云うのは、俗には仮等の三があり、真には義等の三がある。故に「皆三種有り」と云う。広くは『中辺〔論〕』第二巻の説の如し。

「もし諸法を以って〜故に増減に非ず」について。「諸法の有無・事理等」とは、前に既に説いた如くである。「また瑜伽の釈に云う」等とは、第三十六巻の真実義品の文意である。故に彼の文に云う。「真実義に略して二種あり。一には如所有性に依る諸法の真実性。二には尽所有性に依る諸法の一切性」と。乃至「この真実義にまた四

【下段】
種あり。一には世間極成真実。乃至。第四には所知障浄智所行真実」と。今は意を取って引用する。故に「世間所成等」と云う。解して云う。教が真諦を詮ずるを「如所有性」と名づける。教が俗諦を詮ずるを「尽所有性」と名づける。既にこの二つに四真実があると云えば、明らかに知る。世俗・勝義は皆「世間所成等の四」を有する。故に二諦の中に各々四重がある。「世間所成」と言うのは、もし勝義の四重に依って説くならば、世間の世俗の智の知るところを謂う。地はただ地であって火等ではない。この地を「真実」と名づける。世間の道理によってその性は虚ならず。故に「真実」と名づける。すなわち蘊等がこれである。もし世俗の四重に依って説くならば、法体は必ずしも有るとは限らないが、一切世間が共に許して言説によって「有」と執着する。故にすなわち実我・法・瓶・盆等がこれである。余の三重も同様である。

（考：「無垢疏」一〔二十四丁〕）

『無垢疏』第一の広説の如し。

「これにより世俗及び勝義諦は各々四種に分かれる」等とは、章家の文である。問：疏

（考：「唯識疏」は一本七三右）

第一に云う。「前の四世俗は、『瑜伽論』六十四の中及び『顕揚』六の説の如し。名字は別なりといえども、諸論にもその四真諦があり、義においても名においても、諸論に有るにあらず、唯この論のみに釈す」と。第九巻の如し。既に「その四真諦は、義においても名においても、諸論に有るにあらず、唯この論のみに釈す」と云う。いかにして今、瑜伽を釈して、「世俗・勝義は皆、世間所成等の四を有す」と云うのか。解して云う。余の論は惣合して真の四を説く。この論は別開して真の四を説く。今は名・義によって開いて別に説く。故に「唯この論のみに釈す」と云う。

英語訳

【Right Page】
【Outside frame, upper right】
Seventy
【Outside frame, upper right horizontal】
Dharma Garden Meaning Mirror - Two Truths Chapter
【Outside frame, lower right horizontal】
Seventy

【Upper Section】
Because one cultivates according to each stage, it is called "cultivation." Next, "seeking fruition" means the two fruits of wisdom and severance that one pursues. Finally, "knowing the object" means the objects such as the three natures, the three non-arisings, and so on that should be known. Therefore the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* explains the three natures and so forth and calls them "what should be known." In this present passage, because it speaks of only the first two stages, it says "the path of provisions and expedient means." Within the first [category of] cutting off obstructions, one only suppresses but does not cut off. Therefore it says "aversion and renunciation." In the next [category of] cultivation, one only cultivates the contaminated practices of the six perfections and so forth. Therefore it says "cultivation and practice." In the next [category of] seeking fruition, in the first stage of provisions one seeks the fruit of liberation, and in the latter stage of preliminary practice one seeks the fruit of decisive discrimination. Therefore it says "advancement and approach." In the final [category of] knowing the object, relying on approximated contemplation, one understands the meaning of existence and non-existence of the three natures. Therefore it says "understanding and knowing." In non-establishment, though it is not that dharmas are non-existent, one cannot explain [ultimate reality] as being a cause or as being a result, because mind and speech are cut off. If there were no conventional truth, by what means would the bodhisattva pass through the five stages and cultivate pure practice? Because of this excellent benefit, outside of non-establishment, one afterwards explains establishment.

Regarding "Question: If practice has [characteristics]... and yet is able to sever delusion": This answer is also based on the treatise text. From "from the state of supremely good meditative concentration" to "should attain liberation, ultimate purity," this is the treatise text. From "from mind with characteristics" to "what difference is there in the end," this is the chapter master's explanatory text. Also "the two kinds of mundane and supramundane paths differ" is the treatise text. Therefore "if practice has characteristics, liberation cannot be attained," and so on below, is the chapter master's explanatory text. "When turning and taking the noble dharmas of the stage of accordance with decisive discrimination as object of the various truths," etc., represents the view of [Kuiji,] the Master of Great Vehicle [Faxiang], who relies on this passage to demonstrate that the supreme worldly dharma extends through multiple moments. Therefore, in the *Annotations on the Sutra of Golden Light* (*Jin Guangming jing gujiji*) by Master Daehyeon, he refutes [Kuiji,] the Master of Great Vehicle, saying: "Having already attained decisive discrimination, at which stage does one redirect one's mind?" Kuiji says:

(Note: "Stage" is absent in one manuscript.)

【Lower Section】
"It extends through four [stages], because in the Great Vehicle school the supreme worldly dharma spans multiple moments." What does he use as proof? He says "because one takes the various truths as objects, because one should not suddenly produce the practices of the various truths." This is incorrect. It contradicts the *Abhidharma* [Mahāvibhāṣā], which says "one moment." The preceding moment cannot enter the sage [state] without interruption. It should be like the stage of warmth and so forth, not being the supreme worldly [dharma]. Therefore on this basis there is no meaning of redirecting the mind in the fourth [stage]. Now I rescue [this position] by saying: When the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* says "one moment," this is because it follows the principle of conventional explanation, and there is therefore no contradiction.

(Note: "dharma" follows with "nine initial same commentary eight [eleventh folio, left].")

"Hereby one proves that the wisdom of non-discrimination definitely has no aspect-portion and yet is able to sever delusion": This refers to the three masters' theories in the ninth fascicle of the *Cheng weishi lun* (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*). The first says: this wisdom has neither of the two portions. The second says: both aspect-portion and cognizing-portion exist. The third master says: the cognizing-portion exists but the aspect-portion does not. Now [the author] refutes the first two and demonstrates the correctness of the third; therefore it says "hereby one proves."

Regarding "Question: Establishing only one... explaining two is also thus": Below this there are two questions and answers. Both are the chapter master's text. "Gathering practices and returning to the ultimate, collectively establishing one truth" — "practices" refers to the dharmas of conditioned activity. "Ultimate" refers to the true principle of the tathāgata-garbha. This explains the meaning of the One Truth Chapter (*yīdì zhāng*) of the *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra*. "One truth" means: among the four noble truths, three are conventional, and only one is ultimate. Because the ultimate truth is only one, it is called "one truth." This is the meaning of that sūtra. It is based on the meaning of the selective cessation truth of the tathāgata-garbha. In [*Yogācāra*] fascicle 64, it explains "the conventional has four levels, the ultimate has only one truth." Now setting the ultimate and conventional in opposition, one establishes the two truths. In the *Renwang jing* (*Scripture for Humane Kings*) as well, explaining it as two is also thus. This points to the meaning of the Two Truths Chapter in the upper fascicle of that sūtra. For a detailed account, see that explanation.

Regarding "If following persons and dharmas... all have three kinds": *Nirvāṇa* [Sūtra] chapter 13, following the shallowness and depth of wisdom and the superiority and inferiority of dharmas, also explains the two truths. As already explained above. "Or, the conventional and the ultimate both have two truths" means: knowing the ultimate and

【Left Page】
【Outside frame, upper left】
Seventy-one
【Outside frame, upper left horizontal】
Dharma Garden Meaning Mirror - Two Truths Chapter
【Outside frame, lower left horizontal】
Seventy-one

【Upper Section】
conventional truths, each has the general and the particular. Knowing by general characteristics is called "middle wisdom." Knowing by particular characteristics is called "superior wisdom." Whether ultimate or conventional, what is known by middle wisdom is called "worldly truth." Whether ultimate or conventional, what is known by superior wisdom is called "first meaning [ultimate]." Therefore within both ultimate and conventional, there are two truths each. "If using emptiness and phenomena-and-principle, etc." refers to

(Note: The full text of the *Xianyang* lacks "if"; perhaps it refers to the meaning from the fourth folio, right, onward.)

The *Xianyang lun* (*Mahāyānasaṃgraha-vyākhyā*) fascicle 16, which explains the three natures and so forth. The first, the nature of thoroughgoing conceptual construction (*parikalpita-svabhāva*), is called "emptiness." The next, dependent origination (*paratantra-svabhāva*), is called "phenomena." The last, perfect consummation (*pariniṣpanna-svabhāva*), is called "principle." This accords with the *Madhyānta-vibhāga* and the "provisional practice and manifestation." That is: the nature of thoroughgoing conceptual construction has no real nature, so it is called "provisional conventional truth." The dependent origination nature is conditioned activity arising from conditions, so it is called "conventional truth of activity." The perfect consummation nature has true suchness as its substance; although it is called "manifest," it manifests depending on others. It is called "manifest conventional truth." This clarifies that the conventional has three distinctions. "Meaning, attainment, and practice" clarifies that the ultimate also has three kinds. First, "meaning-ultimate": this refers to the fact that the true suchness is the object-meaning of supreme wisdom. Second, "attainment-ultimate": nirvāṇa is its substance, because the supreme is the meaning. Third, "practice-ultimate": the noble path is its substance. This noble path uses the supreme dharma of true suchness as its object-meaning. It is called "practice-ultimate." Now saying "within the two truths there are all three kinds" means: the conventional has the three [kinds] of provisional and so on; the ultimate has the three [kinds] of meaning and so on. Therefore it says "all have three kinds." For details, see the explanation in the second fascicle of the *Madhyānta-vibhāga*.

Regarding "If taking all dharmas... therefore neither increase nor decrease": "The existence and non-existence, phenomena and principle, etc. of all dharmas," as already explained above. "Also the *Yogācāra* commentary says," etc., refers to the meaning of the passage of the "Chapter on the Meaning of Reality" (*Tattvārtha* chapter) in fascicle 36. Therefore that text says: "The meaning of reality, in brief, has two kinds. First, the true nature of all dharmas according to their mode of existence (*yathābhūtam*). Second, the totality of all dharmas in their entirety (*yāvad-bhāvika*)." And further: "This meaning of reality furthermore has four

【Lower Section】
kinds. First, the reality established by the world. Through to the fourth, the reality within the domain of wisdom purified from the cognitive obstruction." The present text takes the meaning and cites it. Therefore it says "established by the world, etc." Explanation: When the teaching clarifies the ultimate truth, it is called "the nature of how things exist" (*yathābhūtam*). When the teaching clarifies the conventional truth, it is called "the totality nature" (*yāvad-bhāvika*). Since it says that these two each have four realities, it becomes clear that the conventional and the ultimate both have the four [realities] of "established by the world, etc." Therefore within the two truths, each has four levels. As for "established by the world": if explained according to the four levels of the ultimate, it refers to what is known by the worldly conventional wisdom. Earth is only earth and not fire and so forth. This earth is called "reality." By worldly principle, its nature is not false. Therefore it is called "reality." The aggregates (*skandha*) and so forth are examples of this. If explained according to the four levels of the conventional, the dharma-substance does not necessarily exist, but all the world jointly accepts and through verbal convention grasps it as existing. Therefore the real self, dharmas, jars, bowls, etc. are examples of this. The remaining three levels are similar.

(Note: "*Wugou shu*" [Immaculate Commentary] fascicle one [24th folio].)

As extensively explained in the first fascicle of the *Immaculate Commentary*.

"Therefore the conventional and ultimate truths are each divided into four kinds," etc., is the chapter master's text. Question: The Commentary

(Note: The *Weishi shu* [*Vijñaptimātratā* Commentary], one manuscript has [it at] page 73, right.)

fascicle one says: "The previous four conventional [truths] are as explained in *Yogācārabhūmiśāstra* fascicle 64 and *Xianyang* fascicle 6. Although the names are different, [these] treatises also have the four ultimate truths. Whether by meaning or by name, [these] are not found in other treatises; only this treatise explains them. See fascicle nine." Since it already says "those four ultimate truths—whether by meaning or by name—are not found in other treatises; only this treatise explains them," how can one now, citing the *Yogācāra* commentary, say "both the conventional and the ultimate have the four [realities] of established by the world and so forth"? Explanation: Other treatises combine and explain the four ultimates as a whole. This treatise opens and distinguishes to explain the four ultimates. Now [we] open and separately explain according to name and meaning. Therefore it says "only this treatise explains."