大方廣佛華嚴經疏 4.12

4.12

二我聞者，聞成就也。將欲傳之於未聞，若有言而不傳便是徒設，不在能說貴在能傳，故次明我聞。我即阿難，聞謂親自聽聞。云何稱我？即諸蘊假者。此用何聞？若依大小乘法相，各有三說：一耳聞非識、二識聞非耳、三緣合方聞。然或具四緣八緣等，雖因耳處，廢別從總，故稱我聞。法雖無我，言語便故，隨順世間故稱我聞，非邪慢心而有所說。若依無相，我既無我，聞亦無聞，從緣空故而不壞假名，即不聞聞耳。若約法性，此經旨趣，傳法菩薩以我無我不二之真我、根境非一異之妙耳，聞無礙法界之法門也。然阿難所不聞經，或云展轉傳聞、或云如來重說、或云得深三昧、或自然能通。上皆就跡而說，實是大權菩薩影響弘傳，如《不思議境界經》斯為良證。但隨機教別，故見聞不同。上來總顯已聞竟。

Second, "I have heard" is the fulfillment of hearing. Intending to transmit it to those who have not yet heard, if there are words but they are not transmitted, they are set forth in vain; the value lies not merely in being able to expound, but in being able to transmit; hence next "I have heard" is clarified. "I" is Ānanda; "heard" means listening and hearing in person. Why call it "I"? It is the provisional person of the aggregates. With what is this hearing done? Relying on the doctrinal marks of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, each has three theories: 1. the ear hears, not consciousness; 2. consciousness hears, not the ear; 3. hearing occurs only when conditions combine. However, it may possess four conditions, eight conditions, and so forth; although it depends on the ear organ, setting aside the specific and following the general, it is therefore called "I have heard". Although dharmas are without self, for ease of verbal expression and in conformity with the worldly, it is called "I have heard"; it is not spoken out of a mind of heterodox conceit. If relying on marklessness: since the self is without self, hearing is also without hearing; because it is empty through conditions, it does not destroy conventional designations, which is just hearing without hearing. If regarding dharmatā, the import of this sūtra is that the bodhisattva who transmits the Dharma, with the true self of the non-duality of self and non-self, and the wondrous ear wherein organ and object are neither one nor different, hears the Dharma-gate of the unobstructed dharmadhātu. However, regarding the sūtras that Ānanda did not hear: some say they were transmitted by indirect hearsay; some say the Tathāgata expounded them again; some say he attained deep samādhi; or that he was spontaneously able to penetrate them. All the above are spoken with respect to traces; in truth, he was a bodhisattva of great expedient manifestation who assisted the propagation through his influence, as the *Acintyaviṣayasūtra* provides good proof. It is merely according to the differences in capacities and teachings that seeing and hearing differ. Above, generally revealing what has been heard is completed.