法華文句記 7.3

7.3

有人以信解相對為四句，鈍根正見信而不解，利根邪見解而不信，利根正見有信有解，鈍根邪見無信無解。初二二句依何得名？若第三句當此品者，若約小乘得作此說，不合釋此。若法執中見等，聲聞領時合入七地，云何猶在初信心耶？有人以通大地信數慧數為信解體。今問，體是何義？指心所耶？如此心所聖位攝耶？凡位攝耶？若聖位者大小聖耶？小非今意大深淺耶？況今聞實而領解耶？故信解今經已入初住，則非小乘心所所攝，舉一例諸餘皆準此。有人云對前七異不成異也。一所從異，今謂不然，三根聞略悉生疑動執，但信解前後何得云身子從疑，此中從執有疑必執有執必疑，況疑執名通而須簡小，小乘疑執見道已除，安隔二酥仍須互立？二廣略異者，此亦不爾，但文異義同，故身子云將非魔等，及述五佛言略意廣豈名略耶？三遠近異，此亦不爾，文義俱同，非但此文述道樹前，身子述本著邪見時亦過道樹，故無異也。四通別異者，此亦不爾。文異意同，身子既云我等不預，又云我等同入法性，又云若我等待說所因，又云我等不解方便，敘失之文四度云等，豈有述得別在一身？此雖列四僧首又局，是則身子通及一切，迦葉別在四人。

Someone pairs faith and understanding into four propositions: those of dull faculties with right view have faith but no understanding; those of sharp faculties with wrong view have understanding but no faith; those of sharp faculties with right view have both faith and understanding; those of dull faculties with wrong view have neither faith nor understanding. Based on what do the first two propositions receive their names? If the third proposition corresponds to this chapter, such an explanation might be made according to the Hinayana, but it is inappropriate to interpret this [chapter] with it. If in the attachment to dharmas there are views and the like, when the śrāvakas express understanding they should enter the seventh bhūmi; why then are they still at the initial mind of faith? Someone takes the mental factors of faith and wisdom from among the universally present mental factors as the essence of faith and understanding. Now I ask: what is the meaning of "essence"? Does it refer to mental factors? Are such mental factors subsumed under the noble stages, or under the ordinary stages? If under the noble stages, is it the Hinayana or Mahāyāna noble ones? The Hinayana is not the present intent; are the Mahāyāna [stages] deep or shallow? Moreover, now they hear the real and express understanding! Therefore, in having faith and understanding the present sūtra, they have already entered the first abidance; thus it is not subsumed under Hinayana mental factors. Raising one serves as an example for all; the rest follow this standard. Someone says that in comparison with the preceding there are seven differences; this does not constitute differences. First, that which is followed is different: I now say this is not so. When those of the three faculties heard the summary, they all gave rise to doubt and shook their attachments; it is only that faith and understanding come earlier or later. How can it be said that Śāriputra followed doubt, while here they follow attachment? Where there is doubt, there must be attachment; where there is attachment, there must be doubt. Moreover, the terms "doubt" and "attachment" are general and need to be distinguished from the Hinayana; for Hinayana doubt and attachment were already eliminated on the path of seeing, so separated by the two curds, how could they still need to be established against each other? Second, difference in breadth and brevity: this is also not so, for it is merely a difference in phrasing while the meaning is identical. Thus Śāriputra said, "Could it not be Māra...", and his recounting of the five buddhas was brief in words but broad in meaning; how could it be called brief? Third, difference in distance: this is also not so, as the phrasing and meaning are both identical. Not only does this text recount [the time] before the Bodhi tree, but Śāriputra's recounting of originally clinging to wrong views also goes beyond the Bodhi tree; thus there is no difference. Fourth, difference between general and specific: this is also not so. The words differ but the intent is identical: Śāriputra said, "We did not participate," and also said, "We equally entered the dharma-nature," and also said, "If we had waited for the explanation of the causes," and also said, "We did not understand skillful means." The text recounting the loss says "we" four times; how could recounting the gain be restricted to a single person? Although four are listed here, they are heads of the Saṅgha and also restricted. If so, Śāriputra extends universally to all, whereas Kāśyapa is specific to the four persons.