大般若波羅蜜多經般若理趣分述讚 1.11

1.11

問：諸佛說法本除我執，何故阿難不稱名字乃稱於我？答：以理而言亦應稱字，略有三義但總稱我。一、示不乖俗。宗雖顯真、言不乖俗，雖無有我仍立我名，欲顯真諦不離俗故。二、我者主宰自在之義，阿難多聞聞持其聞積集，三慧齊備文義竝持，於聖教中總持自在。若稱阿難聞如是法，雖指己體，無於法中得自在義。欲顯於法自在義成，故稱我聞，不稱慶喜。三、我者親義，世間共言我見聞此將為親證。若但總稱言阿難聞，或非親聞、從他傳受。今顯親聞世尊所說、非他傳聞，故稱我也。由此三義不稱慶喜，但總曰我聞。聞者，謂即耳根發識聽受所說。今廢耳別就我總稱，故名我聞。諸部計聞，說各不等。今依大乘，根識心所境至和合方名為聞。然根五義勝於識等，故名為聞。對法及龍樹皆作此說。若但聞聲即唯在耳，通緣名等亦在意中，由此唯意獨應名聞。故《瑜伽》言「聞謂比量」。耳名聞者，親聞於聲與意為門。而聞教者由耳聞故，因聞所成總名為聞，因耳而得故耳名聞。然耳不能親取諸法差別名等，如〈聞所成地〉從方便說，因聞成法竝名耳聞，如觀第二月見旋火輪等，如毘留離王為殺諸釋種，語皆唯意識，自耳不緣故。

Question: When the Buddhas teach the Dharma, their root purpose is to eliminate grasping to a self. Why did Ānanda not state his personal name, but instead referred to himself as 'I'?
Answer: Reasoning holds that he could also have stated his personal name, but for three brief reasons he simply stated 'I' in a collective sense. First, to show non-contradiction with convention. Although the core tenet reveals ultimate truth, speech does not contradict convention. Even though there is no self, the name 'self' is still posited, because one wishes to show that ultimate truth is not separate from convention. Second, 'I' has the meaning of being master and sovereign. Ānanda had heard much and retained what he heard; his hearing had accumulated, he was fully equipped with the three insights, and he held both text and meaning simultaneously, possessing comprehensive sovereignty within the noble teachings. If he had stated, 'Ānanda heard such a Dharma,' although this would point to his own person, it would lack the meaning of having attained sovereignty within the Dharma. Because he wished to show that the meaning of sovereignty in the Dharma was established, he declared 'I heard' and did not declare '[Ānanda] Joy-delight'. Third, 'I' has the meaning of direct personal presence. In worldly parlance, when people say 'I saw or heard this,' they consider it direct personal witness. If he had merely stated generally, 'Ānanda heard,' it might have been not directly heard, but received by transmission from another. Now, to show that he directly heard what the World-Honoured One spoke and did not hear it transmitted from another, he declared 'I'. Due to these three reasons, he did not declare 'Joy-delight,' but simply said 'I heard'.
As for 'heard', it means that based on the ear faculty, consciousness arises and listens to and receives what was spoken. Now, setting aside the particular ear faculty and speaking collectively of the 'I', it is therefore called 'I heard'.
The various schools posit hearing with differing explanations. Now, relying on the Mahāyāna, only when the faculty, consciousness, mental factors, and object come together in harmony is it called 'hearing'. However, in five respects the faculty is superior to consciousness and the rest, and therefore it is called 'hearing'. Both Abhidharma and Nāgārjuna state this explanation. If one merely hears sound, that resides only in the ear; but universally taking names and the like as objective referents also resides in the mind. Because of this, the mind alone should uniquely be called 'hearing'. Hence the *Yogācāra* says: 'Hearing is inference.' The ear is called 'hearing' because directly hearing sound serves as the gate for the mind. And as for one who hears the teaching, because it is heard by the ear, whatever is accomplished by hearing is collectively called 'hearing'; because it is obtained by relying on the ear, the ear is called 'hearing'. However, the ear cannot directly grasp the distinct names and the like of phenomena. As the 'Stage of Cultivation Arising from Hearing' states in terms of skillful means, phenomena accomplished through hearing are all called 'ear hearing', just as seeing a second moon or seeing a whirling firebrand, or when King Virūḍhaka set out to slaughter the Śākya clan, the words all belong exclusively to the mental consciousness, because one's own ear does not take them as objective referents.