起信論疏筆削記 5.33

5.33

初、略標。疏　或利或鈍者，即根不等。根謂根機，有利鈍故。樂廣樂略，即行不等。行謂意行所欲不同故。假經即利根，尋經便解，不待解釋故。假論即鈍根，於經未曉，須待論說故。若其樂廣樂略之言，通於經論。有樂廣經而得解者，有樂略經而得解者，於論亦爾，此乃於利鈍中各有所好不同。然根不等，則局於經論中各附一事故；行不等，則通於經論中各樂廣略故。然此但約解佛意、不解佛意以明利鈍，不須更約文持義持，細作利鈍解釋，智者應思。受解緣別者，受謂信領教法，解謂開悟佛旨。遇佛者，謂與佛有緣，則從佛受化生解。與教有緣，則遇教受化生解也。此則但約於彼生解不生解說有緣無緣，亦不約有見佛等細論。如佛世諸羅漢等，親從佛聞而證道果，此是遇佛有緣者；如天親等但遇其教而得開悟，此則遇教有緣者，故云緣別。然若據論意，但約於經於論明受解緣別，不須更約遇佛等說。以前論中所問，佛經已說，何須更論？今文已是總答前問，下方別釋也。論意云：經中雖已具說，其如眾生根性利鈍不同，意行好樂有異，信受教法、開悟聖旨因緣別故。若是根利，又於佛語有因緣者，則樂於經而便信受，得悟聖旨，不須更論。若是鈍根，又於經無緣，但於菩薩語有緣者，即樂造論解釋，方曉佛意，故云別也。根行緣三既而有異，何妨經外別造論耶？豈非此文已是總答訖。初遇佛悟無紙墨者，佛在世時但說而已，滅後結集方始有經。當時尚不假經，豈要造論？

First, a brief presentation. Commentary: "Either sharp or dull" refers to inequality of faculties. "Faculties" refers to faculties and capacities, which are either sharp or dull. "Delighting in extensive or delighting in brief" refers to inequality of practice. "Practice" refers to the differences in what the mind's practice desires. Needing sūtras corresponds to sharp faculties: upon consulting the sūtra they immediately understand without waiting for explanations. Needing a śāstra corresponds to dull faculties: not yet comprehending the sūtra, they must wait for the explanation of a śāstra. As for the words "delighting in extensive or delighting in brief", this applies commonly to both sūtras and śāstras. There are those who delight in extensive sūtras and attain understanding, and those who delight in brief sūtras and attain understanding; the same is true of śāstras. This is because within the sharp and the dull, each has different inclinations. However, inequality of faculties is restricted to attaching each to one matter between sūtras and śāstras; inequality of practice applies generally to delighting in extensive or brief in both sūtras and śāstras. Yet this is merely explained in terms of understanding the Buddha's intent versus not understanding the Buddha's intent to clarify sharp and dull; one need not further make minute explanations of sharp and dull in terms of retaining the text versus retaining the meaning. The wise should contemplate this. "Differences in conditions for receiving and understanding": "receiving" means faithfully accepting the teachings; "understanding" means awakening to the Buddha's purport. "Encountering the Buddha" means that having a condition with the Buddha, one receives transformation from the Buddha and produces understanding. Having a condition with the teaching, one encounters the teaching, receives transformation, and produces understanding. This merely speaks of having conditions or lacking conditions in terms of producing understanding or not producing understanding toward that [teaching or Buddha]; it does not argue minutely in terms of having seen the Buddha, etc. For instance, the various arhats in the Buddha's time who personally heard from the Buddha and realized the fruits of the path were those who had the condition of encountering the Buddha. Those like Vasubandhu who only encountered his teaching and attained awakening were those who had the condition of encountering the teaching; hence it says "differences in conditions". However, according to the śāstra's intent, it merely clarifies the differences in conditions for receiving and understanding with respect to sūtras and śāstras; one need not further explain in terms of encountering the Buddha, etc. Because the previous question in the śāstra asked: "The Buddha's sūtras have already taught it; why is a śāstra needed?" the present text is already a general reply to the previous question, and below it will explain separately. The śāstra's intent is: although the sūtras have already taught it fully, nevertheless, because sentient beings' faculties and natures differ in being sharp or dull, the inclinations of their minds' practices differ, and their causes and conditions for faithfully receiving the teachings and awakening to the sagely purport differ: if their faculties are sharp and they also have causes and conditions with the Buddha's words, they delight in the sūtras and readily receive them in faith, attaining awakening to the sagely purport without needing further śāstras. If their faculties are dull and they lack conditions with the sūtras, having conditions only with the words of bodhisattvas, they then delight in the composition of śāstras to explain them, only then comprehending the Buddha's intent; hence it says "differences". Since the three of faculties, practice, and conditions differ, what is there to prevent composing a śāstra separate from the sūtras? Is this text not indeed already a general reply? "First, those who awoke upon encountering the Buddha had no paper and ink": when the Buddha was in the world, he merely spoke; only after his extinction was there the compilation [of the canon], and only then were there sūtras. At that time they did not even rely on sūtras; how could they need the composition of a śāstra?