大般若波羅蜜多經般若理趣分述讚 1.13

1.13

問：《大般若》等佛自說言：「我從成道終至涅槃，於其中間不說一字。」何故慶喜謗佛說法，自稱我聞？又《升攝波葉喻經》言「已所說法如手中葉，未所說法如林中葉。」明佛說法。今言我聞，復言不說，一何乖返？答曰：《佛地論》說「有義如來慈悲本願增上緣力，聞者識上文義相生。此文義相雖親依自善根力起，而就強緣，名為佛說。由耳根力自心變現，故名我聞。」此師意說，佛有三法謂定智悲，三法為體實不說法。由本因中願利生故大悲恒起，眾生久修遇佛善業今時成熟，自識心上聞佛說法變似教生，而實不說。如曾參之母嚙指，曾參心痛，知母喚而還。母實無言，但有念子之意，風雲相感其子心疼，變似母喚之相，急歸果如所說。今佛如母，眾生喻參，有言無言其類相似。亦如女人請比丘說法，比丘私去，實不為說。女人得道，言由比丘之恩。以比丘為增上緣，心厭生死遂得證果。眾生以佛為增上緣，自心變似三乘教起，從強緣論，名為佛說，佛實無言。此言我聞，其義亦爾。有義：聞者善根本願增上緣力，如來識上文義相生。此文義相是佛利他善根所起，名為佛說。聞者識心雖不親得，然似彼相分明顯說，故名我聞。此師意說，佛有五蘊十八界等，實有說法利他事業，雖無分利不起攀緣，任運恒時隨機說法作大利樂，如末尼珠及天帝鼓，雖無有心為雨眾寶，及為天帝有說不說。天帝善業感彼力故，鼓任運鳴，天帝聞之而自嚴警。今佛亦爾，無心分別說與不說，眾生善業聞法因熟，如來任運現說法事。此中說法，譬如幻人為幻人說法，名字性離無有文字是即解脫。非如妄執名定屬法、實有能說能聽所說，故佛說言不說一字。夫說法者無說無示等，若如幻士為幻人說，即是非無。故經說言「說法非有亦非無，待因緣故諸法立」也。佛既說法，慶喜親聞，故名我聞。此中二解，初是龍軍、無性等一類師解，後是護法、親光一師之義。應知說此如是我聞，意避增減異分過失。謂如是法我從佛聞、非他展轉，顯示聞者有所堪能，諸有所聞皆離增減異分過失。非如愚夫無所堪能，諸有所聞或不能離增減異分。結集法時，傳佛教者依如來教初說此言，為令眾生恭敬信受，言如是法我從佛聞，文義決定無所增減，是故聞者應正聞已，如理思惟常勤修學。

Question: In the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā* and other scriptures, the Buddha himself declared: 'From my attaining the Way until my nirvāṇa, between these I did not speak a single word.' Why did Joy-delight slander the Buddha by saying he taught the Dharma, and himself declare 'I heard'? Furthermore, the *Siṃsapā-leaf Sūtra* states: 'The Dharma I have taught is like the leaves in my hand; the Dharma I have not taught is like the leaves in the forest,' clearly showing that the Buddha taught the Dharma. Now stating 'I heard' while also stating that he 'did not speak'—how can these not be completely contradictory?
Answer: The *Buddhabhūmi-śāstra* says: 'One position holds that by the power of the Tathāgata's compassion and fundamental vow acting as the dominant condition, representations of the text and meaning arise upon the consciousness of the hearer. Although these representations of text and meaning directly arise depending on the power of one's own wholesome roots, yet in reference to the dominant condition, they are called the "Buddha's teaching". Because of the power of the ear faculty manifesting from one's own mind, it is therefore called "I heard".' What this master means to say is: The Buddha possesses three dharmas—namely, meditative stabilization, wisdom, and compassion; with these three dharmas as his essence, he does not in reality teach the Dharma. Because in his fundamental causal stage he vowed to benefit sentient beings, his great compassion constantly arises; and when the wholesome karma of sentient beings, cultivated over a long time to encounter the Buddha, now ripens, upon their own cognitive consciousness the hearing of the Buddha teaching the Dharma manifests as if a teaching had arisen, whereas in reality he did not speak. It is like Zeng Shen's mother biting her finger, whereupon Zeng Shen's heart pained him, and knowing his mother was calling him, he returned. The mother in reality spoke no words, but merely had the thought of longing for her son; through mutual resonance like wind and clouds, her son's heart pained, manifesting the semblance of the mother calling him, and he rushed home, finding it just as assumed. Now, the Buddha is like the mother, and sentient beings are compared to Zeng Shen; whether speaking or not speaking, the two cases are similar. It is also like a woman inviting a monk to teach the Dharma, but the monk secretly left, not truly teaching for her. The woman attained the Way and said it was through the grace of the monk. Taking the monk as the dominant condition, her mind grew weary of saṃsāra and she thereupon realized the fruit. Sentient beings take the Buddha as the dominant condition, and their own minds manifest the semblance of the teachings of the three vehicles arising; judged from the dominant condition, it is called the Buddha's teaching, while the Buddha in reality spoke no words. When this text says 'I heard', its meaning is also like this.
Another position holds: By the power of the hearer's wholesome roots and fundamental vows acting as the dominant condition, representations of text and meaning arise upon the Tathāgata's consciousness. These representations of text and meaning arise from the Buddha's wholesome roots of benefiting others, and are called the 'Buddha's teaching'. Although the hearer's conscious mind does not directly receive them, yet resembling those representations, it distinctly hears the teaching; hence it is called 'I heard'. What this master means to say is: The Buddha possesses the five aggregates, eighteen elements, and so forth, and genuinely carries out the activity of teaching the Dharma to benefit others. Although he is without conceptual discrimination and does not arouse cognitive grasping, he effortlessly and constantly teaches the Dharma in accordance with faculties to perform great benefit and joy. It is like the maṇi jewel and the drum of the Heavenly Sovereign [Indra]: although having no mind, it rains down numerous jewels; and for the Heavenly Sovereign it speaks or does not speak. Because the Heavenly Sovereign's wholesome karma induces that power, the drum effortlessly sounds, and upon hearing it the Heavenly Sovereign becomes vigilant. The Buddha now is also like this: without the conceptual discrimination of mind whether to speak or not to speak, when the causes for sentient beings' wholesome karma to hear the Dharma ripen, the Tathāgata effortlessly manifests the matter of teaching the Dharma.
Teaching the Dharma here is, for example, like an illusory person teaching the Dharma to an illusory person: the nature of names is divorced [from real entities], and being free of letters is itself liberation. It is not like the deluded grasping that names definitively belong to phenomena, and that there are real agents of speaking, listening, and what is spoken; therefore the Buddha said that he did not speak a single word. One who teaches the Dharma has nothing to speak and nothing to show; yet if it is like an illusory man teaching an illusory person, then it is not non-existent. Therefore the sūtra states: 'Teaching the Dharma is neither existent nor non-existent; because phenomena depend upon causes and conditions, they are established.' Since the Buddha indeed taught the Dharma and Joy-delight directly heard it, it is called 'I heard'.
Of these two explanations, the first is the explanation of a group of masters such as Śāntirakṣita and Asvabhāva; the second is the meaning of masters Dharmapāla and Śīlabhadra.
It should be known that stating 'Thus have I heard' is intended to avoid the faults of addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. That is: such a Dharma I heard from the Buddha and not through successive transmission from another, showing that the hearer possessed competence, and all that was heard was free from the faults of addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. It is not like a foolish commoner who has no competence, such that what he hears cannot avoid addition, subtraction, or discrepancy. At the time of the compilation of the Dharma, when those transmitting the Buddha's teaching first spoke these words in accordance with the Tathāgata's instructions, it was to cause sentient beings to reverently believe and accept them, saying: 'Such a Dharma I heard from the Buddha; its text and meaning are definitive, without addition or subtraction.' Therefore, hearers, having properly heard it, should contemplate it according to the principle and constantly practice with diligence.