起信論疏筆削記 5.34

5.34

Śāstra: "The Tathāgata" refers to Śākyamuni, and also includes other Buddhas. "Superiority of time": time has no fixed substantial nature; it is merely described as a superior time in terms of the Buddha being present at that time. "Superiority of faculties": this refers exclusively to a certain class of beings who were present in the Buddha's time and conformed with his verbal teachings. As for those who had realizations and understandings, this excludes the class of those who encountered the Buddha but did not awaken. However, during the Buddha's time, those who attained realization and awakening were many, and it is in reference to this that it is stated; hence it is called "superior". "Superiority of conditions": superior to the other two vehicles and bodhisattvas. However, in speaking of the awakening and understanding of their faculties, it does not take the causes and conditions of the arising of the teaching [as secondary]; hence it designates the Buddha as the superior condition. Śāstra: "different kinds" merely refers to the differing natures and faculties of the three vehicles and five vehicles; hence they are called "different kinds". Or it may apply generally to the other destinies, though that is not the primary meaning. Śāstra: "equal understanding": "equal" means uniform; those various different kinds uniformly generated understanding; thus their generation of understanding is equal in meaning, not that what they understood was identical. However, correlating this superiority of faculties with the previous superiority of time, analysis yields four propositions: (1) time is superior but faculties are not superior, such as the group of six [bhikṣus] during the Buddha's time; (2) faculties are superior but time is not superior, such as those who uphold precepts and cultivate merit during the latter five hundred years; (3) both are superior, such as Śāriputra and others; (4) neither is superior, namely those who do not produce understanding after the Buddha's extinction. Śāstra: "did not need a śāstra": according to this, it also implies not needing sūtras. However, according to what the śāstra questioned, it only censured the fact that sūtras had already taught it and that composing a śāstra was redundant, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the matter of the Buddha's presence in the world. The intent of the present answer is to reveal that after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, faculties and practices are different, and the derived understandings from sūtras and śāstras each vary; therefore it first clarifies that when the Buddha was in the world, both faculties and conditions were superior, and they did not even rely on sūtras, so why would they need to compose a śāstra? This reveals that after extinction, faculties and conditions are both inferior, so they must rely on sūtras. Being unable to comprehend the sūtras, they must further rely on a śāstra; this uses the superior to reveal the inferior. Because of this, sūtras and śāstras each accommodate a particular faculty, unlike the complete sound that universally meets many kinds [of beings].