法華文句記 7.3

7.3

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.