起信論疏筆削記 5.33

5.33

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?