[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 17.65 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 17.65 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 17.65 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [17.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17.65) 疏「雖因耳處」下，第二解妨。此有二妨。一有問言：現是耳聞，云何言我聞；故為此通。明我為總，總該眼耳等諸根故。即《佛地論》文。二有問言：一切佛教詮於無我，阿難已是入理聖人，那同凡夫而稱我聞？故此通云：法雖無我，是牒問意。後「言語便」易下，即是通釋。於中，先顯正、後「非邪慢」下揀非。此中通是二論之意，謂《智論》第一有三復次，以釋無我說我。一云復次世間法中說我，非第一義中說。以是之故，諸法空無我。世間法故，雖說於我，無實體故。二云復次世間語言有三根本：一邪、二慢、三名字。前二不淨，後一是淨。一切凡夫具三種語，見道學人具二種語，謂慢、名字。諸聖人具一種語，謂名字，內心不計實法，隨世間人共傳是語。諸佛弟子順俗故，說我無咎。三云復次若人著無我相，諸法是實餘皆妄語。是人應難：此一切法實相無我，云何言如是我聞。今諸佛弟子，知一切法空無所有，是中心不著，亦不著諸法實相，何況無我中心有所著。以是義故，不應難言何以說我。釋曰：上三復次，一隨世間故、二破邪見故、三不著無我故。二者依《瑜伽論》第六云「略由四義，故稱我聞。一為世間語便易故、二為隨順世間故、三為斷除決定無我怖畏故、四謂宣說自他得失令生決定信解心故。」《顯揚》第九、《雜集》十三皆同此說。釋曰：此與《智論》大同。《瑜伽》第一，《智論》略無，易故不出。二即《智論》第一。三即《智論》第三，謂著無我，即無我怖者，謂若定無我，為誰修學？若不說無我，著即令怖；不著故不說無我，此怖自除。四即第二，謂隨世流布，即能令他生決定信解之心。已知二論言異意同，故今疏明含於二論，取其言同，言語便易。即《瑜伽》第一意，隨順世間；即《瑜伽》第二、《智論》第一，非邪慢心而有所說，即《智論》第二意中所揀二語。然大乘法師傍《智論》意，立三種我：一妄執我，即此邪我。二者假施設我，謂大涅槃樂淨常我，除二乘倒，強施設故。此亦即是《智論》名字中收，而《智論》於世間假名，此依出世法假名。三世流布我，正同《智論》三語之中名字我耳。然此中更有問言：為佛說法而言我聞？為不說法而言我聞？即本質、影像之義。已見教體中，故疏不問。 > In the commentary, from “Although depending on the ear-base” downward is the second \[section\], resolving objections. Here there are two objections. First, there is a question: “It is clearly the ear that hears; why say ‘I heard’?” Hence this is resolved: it explains that “I” is the general term, generally subsuming the various sense-bases such as the eyes and ears. This is from the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra. Second, there is a question: “All of the Buddha's teachings explain non-self. Ānanda is already a noble one who has entered the principle; how could he, like an ordinary person, state ‘I heard’?” Hence the resolution states: “Although dharmas are devoid of self…”—this cites the thrust of the question. Below, “because of the convenience of language…” is the resolution proper. Within this, it first reveals the correct \[meaning\], and below “not with a mind of defilement or pride” it rejects errors. The resolution here reflects the intent of two treatises. First, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, Fascicle 1, presents three alternatives to explain why “I” is spoken when there is no self. The first says: Furthermore, “I” is spoken within worldly phenomena, not within the ultimate truth. For this reason, all phenomena are empty and devoid of self. Because it is a worldly phenomenon, although “I” is spoken, it lacks real essence. The second says: Furthermore, worldly language has three roots: first, false view; second, pride; third, conventional designation. The first two are impure; the latter one is pure. All ordinary people possess all three kinds of speech; practitioners on the path of seeing possess two kinds of speech, namely pride and conventional designation. The noble ones possess only one kind of speech, namely conventional designation: in their minds they do not conceive of real dharmas, but merely follow worldly people in conventionally transmitting this speech. The disciples of the Buddhas accord with the conventional, so speaking of “I” entails no fault. The third says: Furthermore, if someone clings to the mark of non-self, \[thinking\], “All dharmas are real, and the rest is all false speech,” such a person would object: “The true mark of all these dharmas is non-self; why say, ‘Thus have I heard’?” Now the disciples of the Buddhas know that all dharmas are empty and non-existent; in this, their minds do not cling, nor do they cling even to the true mark of dharmas, how much less could they cling in their minds to non-self! For this reason, one should not raise the objection: “Why speak of ‘I’?” Explanation: The three alternatives above mean: first, according with the world; second, breaking false views; third, not clinging to non-self. Second, according to the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Fascicle 6: “Briefly, for four reasons one states ‘I heard’: first, for the convenience and ease of worldly language; second, to accord with the world; third, to sever fear of definite non-self; fourth, to proclaim the gains and losses of oneself and others so as to engender definite conviction.” The Prakaraṇāryavācā, Fascicle 9, and the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā, Fascicle 13, both say the same. Explanation: This largely agrees with the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The first point of the Yogācārabhūmi is omitted in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa because it is simple and obvious. The second is the first point of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The third is the third point of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: clinging to non-self constitutes the “fear of non-self,” meaning, “If there is definitely no self, for whom does one practice and study?” If non-self were not taught, clinging would cause fear; because there is no clinging, non-self is not rigidly asserted, and this fear naturally vanishes. The fourth corresponds to the second: by following worldly convention, it causes others to engender definite conviction. Knowing that the two treatises differ in words but agree in meaning, the commentary now encompasses both treatises, taking their points of agreement: “convenience of language” is the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi's first point; “according with the worldly” is the second point of the Yogācārabhūmi and the first of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa; “spoken not with a mind of defilement or pride” rejects the two types of speech in the second point of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. However, Mahāyāna masters, drawing on the meaning of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, establish three kinds of self: first, the falsely grasped self, which is this false self; second, the conventionally designated self, namely the self of bliss, purity, permanence, and self in great nirvāṇa, which is forcibly designated to eliminate the inversions of the two vehicles—this is also subsumed under “conventional designation” in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, yet the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa refers to worldly conventional designations, while this relies on supramundane conventional designations; third, the self of worldly convention, which precisely corresponds to the self of conventional designation among the three kinds of speech in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Furthermore, there is another question here: “Does one say ‘I heard’ because the Buddha taught the Dharma, or does one say ‘I heard’ because he did not teach the Dharma?” This is the doctrine of archetype and image. Since this has already appeared under the essence of the teaching, the commentary does not raise the question. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 17.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17.64) - [Next: 17.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17.66) - [Up: 17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.17.65) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.1.165) — Classical Chinese - [妙法蓮華經玄贊](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1723.1.40) — Classical Chinese - [說無垢稱經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1782.1.22) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.17.65) · Pramāṇa