大般若波羅蜜多經般若理趣分述讚 1.13

1.13

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.