無量壽經義疏 1.5

1.5

Although the principles and meanings within the preface are many, its essential points are just two: first, the preface of initiation; second, the preface confirming credibility. When the Buddha is about to preach a sūtra, he first relies upon a time and place, gathers the assembly through spiritual power, and gives rise to the central doctrine to be taught; this is called initiation. As it provides the cause for the preaching, it is called the preface of initiation. As for the preface confirming credibility: after the Buddha finished preaching the sūtra, Ānanda received it, and being about to transmit it to the final age, he first spoke to sentient beings, saying, 'Such Dharma I heard from the Buddha,' which establishes that it can be trusted; hence it is called confirming credibility. Because this provides confirmation and serves as the cause for transmitting the sūtra, it is called the preface confirming credibility. For what reason are these two prefaces established for one preface? Because the sūtra is twofold. The sūtra is only one—how could there ever be two? Although the substance of the sūtra is one, according to the persons and in accordance with the times, it can be divided into two: first, the sūtra spoken by the Tathāgata; second, the sūtra transmitted by Ānanda. What was spoken by the Tathāgata benefited those at that time; what was transmitted by Ānanda is transmitted to the final age. In response to these two sūtras, two prefaces are therefore established. In response to what was spoken by the Tathāgata, the preface of initiation is established. In response to what was transmitted by Ānanda, the preface confirming credibility is established. However, these two prefaces contain many more meanings, fully explained as usual. In the text, the opening words 'Thus have I heard' are the preface confirming credibility. From 'at one time' onward, the meaning is twofold: if one takes the sense of initiating the original event, it is determined to belong to initiation; if Ānanda adduces it to confirm that it can be trusted, it is called confirming credibility. Since the meaning is twofold, one cannot take only one side. Within the preface confirming credibility, there are three sections of analysis: first, explaining the reason for having 'Thus have I heard'; second, clarifying the intention in establishing it; third, explaining its text. As for the reason: for what cause do all sūtras have the words 'Thus have I heard' at their head? Because the Buddha instructed that they be placed there. For what reason did the Buddha instruct this? Because Ānanda requested it. Why did he request it? Because Aniruddha instructed him. For what reason did Aniruddha instruct him? Because he saw that Ānanda's mind was distressed and afflicted. Why was the monk Ānanda distressed and afflicted? Because he saw the Tathāgata enter parinirvāṇa. When the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, he lay in the Twin Sala Grove with his head to the north. At that time, because the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, Ānanda wept and sobbed, unable to contain himself. Aniruddha awakened Ānanda: 'You are the transmitter of the Dharma; why do you not question the Buddha about matters of future generations? What benefit is there in vain sorrow!' Ānanda replied: 'My mind is now submerged in an ocean of grief; what should I ask?' Aniruddha then instructed Ānanda to ask about four matters: first, to ask who the monks and others should take as their teacher after the World-Honoured One's extinction; second, to ask upon what the monks and others should rely and abide after the World-Honoured One's extinction; third, how to dwell together with monks of an evil nature; fourth, what words should be placed at the head of all sūtras. Having received this instruction, Ānanda's mind awakened slightly, and he then questioned the Buddha accordingly, and the Buddha answered him in turn. As to who the monks and others should take as their teacher: they should rely on the prātimokṣa as their teacher; if I remained in the world, it would be no different from this. Mokṣa is the precepts, that which monks study; therefore it is said to be the teacher. As to upon what the monks should rely and abide: they should abide relying on the four applications of mindfulness. What are the four applications of mindfulness? Namely, a monk, relying on the internal body, cultivates the contemplation of the body, diligently eliminating worldly covetousness and affection. So too relying on the external body, internal and external body; sensations, mind, and dharmas are also like this. This is called the place where monks rely and abide. Therefore a sūtra says: 'If one abides in the four applications of mindfulness, it is called one's own domain, and one will not be bound by Māra. If one abides in the five desires, it is called Māra's domain, and one will be bound by Māra.' As to how to dwell together with monks of an evil nature: regulate them with the Brahmadaṇḍa. Brahmadaṇḍa means to remain silent and not speak with them; if their minds are subdued, preach for them liberation from being and non-being. As to what words should be placed at the head of all sūtras: one should place the six matters, such as 'Thus have I heard, the Buddha was in such-and-such a region, settlement, and grove.' Because of the Buddha's instruction, all sūtras are able to bear 'Thus have I heard' at their head. This concludes the first section. Next is to clarify the intention in establishing it. With what intention did the Buddha originally instruct the placement of these words? To give rise to beings' faith. How does 'thus' give rise to faith? 'Thus' means that Ānanda demonstrates his own faith and compliance with the Buddha's words, stating that what the Buddha spoke is 'as' [things are]. Saying that what the Buddha spoke is 'right' causes other sentient beings to give rise to faith identical to his own. As for 'I have heard,' how does it give rise to faith? Ānanda was himself an inadequate person; if he said that this Dharma was spoken by himself, people would mostly disparage and slander it. Because he said that this Dharma was heard from the Buddha, everyone took refuge in faith. What significance does faith have that requires establishing these words to generate faith? In explanation: faith is the first gate for entering the Dharma, the foremost leader in gathering the Dharma; whenever one enters the Buddha's Dharma, one must first give rise to faith. Therefore the Avataṃsaka speaks of faith as hands: just as a person who has hands, upon reaching a place of precious jewels, gathers them at will, while a person without hands gains nothing at all, so too one who enters the Buddha's Dharma, possessing the hands of a faithful mind, gathers the jewels of the Dharma of the Way at will; if one lacks a faithful mind, one gains nothing at all. Because faith has this significance, the words 'Thus have I heard' were established to give rise to beings' faith. Such is the intention in establishing it. This concludes these two sections. Next is to explain the words 'Thus have I heard.' In 'thus' (ru-shi), the explanation has two aspects: first, explaining it in terms of phenomena. Ānanda states that the words spoken by the Buddha are as (ru) all phenomena, and therefore it is called 'as' (ru). Preaching principle as principle, preaching facts as facts, preaching causes as causes, preaching results as results—whatever is discussed is entirely as the aforementioned matter, and therefore it is called 'as'. Words that are in accord with phenomena are correct (shi) in their proper principle, and therefore it is called 'right' (shi). Truly, because departing from phenomena is called incorrect, words in accord with phenomena can be called 'right'. Second, explaining it in terms of persons. Ānanda states that what Śākyamuni now spoke is as (ru) what all buddhas of the past spoke, and therefore it is called 'as'. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Because what was spoken is unchanging like that of past buddhas, he is called the Tathāgata.' Departing from the speech of the buddhas, one's words are wrong; being as the speech of the buddhas, one's words are right (shi). Therefore it is said 'thus' (ru-shi). As for 'I have heard': Ānanda, addressing those future sentient beings, states his own hearing of the preaching; therefore he says 'I have heard.' Hearing is truly the ear—how can one say 'I'? The distinctions among the sense faculties are all instruments used by the 'I'; speaking with reference to the master, it is therefore said 'I have heard.' There is no person within dharmas; where is there a master, such that you speak of referring to a master to say 'I have heard'? In explanation: although within dharmas there is no fixed master, there is nonetheless nominal coordination and governance, so one can also speak of 'I'. Therefore the Nirvāṇa says: 'For example, four divisions of troops combine to make an army. Although there is no fixed master, one can also say: "My army is brave and robust; my army surpasses them."' This is also like that. Question: Ānanda was a sage who had attained principle; for what reason did he speak of 'I' in the same manner as ordinary people? In explanation: although Ānanda also spoke of 'I', it was not the same as ordinary worldlings. How was it not the same? There are three ways of speaking of 'I': first, speaking of 'I' with a mind of view: this refers to ordinary worldlings in whom the view of self has not yet perished, who state that there is an 'I' within their mind of the view of self. Second, speaking of 'I' with a mind of conceit: this refers to practitioners in training whose view of self has perished, but whose mind of conceit still remains, and who speak of 'I' within their mind of self-conceit. Third, the conventionally circulating 'I': this refers to sages beyond training, whose underlying afflictions of views have long perished, and whose underlying afflictions of conceit are also exhausted, who speak of 'I' as a conventional designation in accordance with worldly circulation. Now when Ānanda compiled the Dharma, he was established in the stage beyond training, his views and conceit had perished and been eliminated, and he spoke of 'I' as a conventional designation in accordance with worldly circulation; therefore it is not the same as ordinary people. Question: 'I' is a conventional designation belonging to conventional truth, while non-self is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is superior; why not rely on the superior to declare non-self, rather than speaking of 'I' following the conventional designation of conventional truth? To transform our ordinary people, the method must be like this. If one did not speak of 'I', how could one indicate and distinguish this from that so as to enable people to recognize it? Therefore one must speak of 'I'. For this reason, even the buddhas, in order to transform, also constantly speak of 'I'. The wise do not find this strange. From 'at one time' onward: although the meaning is twofold, in contrast to the previous section which is solely the preface confirming credibility, the following is explained specifically in terms of initiation. Within this there are three parts: first, clarifying the Buddha as the teaching master. Second, from 'together with a great monk [assembly]' onward, distinguishing his disciples and assembly. Third, from 'At that time the World-Honoured One's sense faculties were radiant' onward, the Tathāgata manifests a transformation as an initiation, and Ānanda makes his request. In the first part, 'at one time' raises the time of the Buddha's teaching. The word 'Buddha' raises the person teaching the transformation. 'Dwelling in Rājagṛha' and so forth raises the place of the Buddha's teaching. As for 'at one time,' people have differing explanations. Discussing it properly now: the occasion of transforming is consequently called 'time'. Among the Buddha's lifetime, the times of teaching were numerous; to distinguish it from other times, it is therefore said 'one'. The expression 'at one time' occurs abundantly in the sūtras. As the Nirvāṇa says: 'I, at one time in the city of Rājagṛha, discussed conventional truth together with the Bodhisattva Maitreya'; 'I, at one time on the bank of the Ganges'; 'I, at one time in the Forest of Corpses'—these words are similar to that. 'Buddha' is as explained previously. 'Dwelling in Rājagṛha' refers generally to the city. In ancient times, many kings dwelt in this city; hence it is named the City of the King's Abode (Rājagṛha). 'Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa' points specifically to the location. Surrounding the city of Rājagṛha there are five mountains in all, each having a vihāra. To distinguish it from the other places, one must therefore say Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa. Translated here, it is named Numinous Vulture Mountain. This mountain had many spiritual immortals dwelling there, so it is named 'numinous'; there were also vulture birds dwelling on this mountain, so it is named 'vulture'. It is also named Vulture Peak Mountain. Many spiritual vultures dwell on this mountain summit, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain; moreover, the summit of this mountain resembles the head of a vulture bird, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain. Dwelling in the midst of the place of wandering and transforming is termed 'dwelling'. The dharmakāya is uniform and truly has no resting place; manifesting transformation in a specific direction, it is therefore merely said to 'dwell'. Why not adhere to the real, instead relying on transformation? In order to communicate the teaching of transformation, one must follow transformation. In the second part, the assembly: first the śrāvakas are listed, and afterward the bodhisattvas are displayed. Many sūtras are like this. Why is it so? Generally, there are four explanations: First, distinguishing by near and far. The śrāvakas mostly stayed near the Tathāgata; therefore, after identifying the Buddha, they are listed first according to their proximity; bodhisattvas mostly did not stay near the Buddha, and for this reason are listed afterward. Why were the śrāvakas specifically near the Tathāgata while the bodhisattvas were not near? The explanation has two aspects: First, the śrāvakas had not practiced the Way for long and were not yet skilled in the Dharma of the Way; although they had attained the noble fruit, their bodily deportment constantly complied with the Buddha's teachings. As in the Vinaya sūtras, Aniruddha was prohibited from staying overnight with a woman, Sāgata was prohibited from drinking alcohol, the group of seventeen youths was prohibited from sporting in water, and so forth—these were all arhats complying with the Buddha's disciplinary prohibitions, up until the Tathāgata's parinirvāṇa, when the śrāvakas were prohibited from eating leftovers; for this reason they stayed near the Buddha. Bodhisattvas had long been skilled in the Dharma of the Way and did not depend on the Buddha's instruction; therefore they did not stay near the Buddha. Second, the śrāvakas had presently received the Buddha's deliverance, leaving behind the ordinary to become noble, and bore profound and heavy gratitude; although they had attained the noble fruit, they constantly followed the Tathāgata, attending upon and making offerings to him; therefore they mostly stayed near the Buddha. Although bodhisattvas also bore the Buddha's grace, their task was to transform sentient beings, gathering them according to conditions; thus they mostly did not stay near the Buddha. Because those śrāvakas mostly stayed near the Tathāgata, they are listed first; bodhisattvas were not like this, so they are listed afterward. This is the first: distinguishing by near and far. Second, distinguishing by deportment and outward appearance. The śrāvakas maintained decorous deportment and in appearance resembled the Buddha, being universally revered by the world; therefore they are listed first. Bodhisattvas adapted to transformations, and their forms and deportment were not fixed; therefore they are listed afterward. As in the case of Mañjuśrī spending the summer retreat in three different places during a single summer, that is an example of this. Third, distinguishing by regulation, which can also be called distinguishing by teaching. As Nāgārjuna explained, teachings are of two kinds: first, explicit; second, esoteric. According to the explicit teaching, arhats and pratyekabuddhas, like the Buddha, have exhausted outflows; after mentioning the Buddha, the śrāvakas are listed first. Bodhisattvas, adapting to transformation, manifest abiding in outflows and appear as ordinary worldlings. If worldly people heard that they were placed above arhats, many would be alarmed and astonished; therefore they are listed afterward. The listing of śrāvakas first in various sūtras is mostly based on this. If according to the profound, esoteric teaching, the virtue of bodhisattvas is exalted and should be listed first, while the virtue of śrāvakas is inferior and must be listed afterward. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra lists bodhisattvas first, and only later, in the assembly at the multi-storied pavilion of the Jeta Grove, lists the śrāvakas. Fourth, distinguishing by quantity. As the Nirvāṇa says: 'Among all the assemblies, the fewer are listed first, and the more are listed afterward.' In that sūtra, the śrāvaka assembly was small, so they are listed first; the bodhisattva assembly was vast, so they are listed afterward. This last explanation is confined to the Nirvāṇa, whereas the others apply broadly to various sūtras. Here, we tentatively rely on the first two explanations to list the śrāvakas first and display the bodhisattvas afterward.