大般涅槃經義記 1.18

1.18

第二門中，先明二序名之差別，後辯得失。名別有四：一當相以名，名為發起及以證信；二就人為名，名如來序及阿難序，發起序者，如來所為名如來序，證信序者，阿難所作名阿難序；三就時為名，名現在序及未來序，如來序者名現在序，阿難序者名未來序；四對經為名，名經前序及經後序，如來序者名為經前，阿難序者說為經後。此名佛說以之為經，約對此經以別前後，彼證信序更有一名，名遺教序，佛將滅度，遺言教置，故曰遺教。名別如此。次明得失。此四對中，證信發起，名義無爽。第二對中，阿難序者名亦無過，道如來序，義有不足。云何不足？如說《勝鬘》，有佛化主、王及夫人、旃提、勝鬘五人影響，共為發起。諸經發起多不獨佛，若使發起名如來序，失他餘人發起之義，以如來序有過須廢，阿難序者對亦不立。第三對中現在無爽，未來不便。是義云何？若使如來現在說經，所立之序名為現在，阿難傳時亦是現在所立之序，何為非現？若對如來現在說時，阿難之序遂名未來，是則對於阿難傳時，如來之序應名過去。佛雖過去，正取說時以為現在；阿難亦爾，對佛雖未，正取傳時，亦是現在。二俱現在，何可偏名一為未來？良以未來有過須廢，所對現在事亦不立。第四對中，經前無過，經後不便。若道經後，云何名序？若說為序，則非經後。當知二序約對二經，皆是經前，不可偏判一為經後，良以經後不便須廢，所對經前義亦不立。良以諸名斯皆有過，故今釋者偏存證信發起之稱。

Under the second approach, first the differences between the names of the two prefaces are clarified, and then their advantages and disadvantages are examined. The distinctions in names are fourfold: First, named according to their marks: called the initiating and the faith-attesting. Second, named in terms of the persons: called the Tathāgata's preface and Ānanda's preface; the initiating preface, being what the Tathāgata did, is called the Tathāgata's preface, while the faith-attesting preface, being what Ānanda made, is called Ānanda's preface. Third, named in terms of time: called the present preface and the future preface; the Tathāgata's preface is called the present preface, and Ānanda's preface is called the future preface. Fourth, named in relation to the sūtra: called the preface before the sūtra and the preface after the sūtra; the Tathāgata's preface is called before the sūtra, and Ānanda's preface is spoken of as after the sūtra. Here the Buddha's preaching is taken as the sūtra, and in relation to this sūtra, before and after are distinguished. That faith-attesting preface has yet another name, called the bequeathed teaching preface: when the Buddha was about to enter extinction, he gave his bequeathed instructions to set it down, hence it is called bequeathed teaching. Such are the distinctions in names. Next, clarifying the advantages and disadvantages. Among these four pairs, "faith-attesting" and "initiating" are without flaw in name and meaning. In the second pair, the name "Ānanda's preface" is also without fault, but calling it "the Tathāgata's preface" is insufficient in meaning. Why is it insufficient? For example, when the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra was spoken, there were five persons acting in concert to initiate it: the Buddha as the transforming host, the king, the queen, Candanā, and Śrīmālā. In most sūtras, the initiation is not by the Buddha alone; if the initiation is called the Tathāgata's preface, it loses the meaning of the initiation by those other persons. Since the Tathāgata's preface has a fault and must be abandoned, its counterpart, Ānanda's preface, cannot stand either. In the third pair, "present" is without flaw, but "future" is inappropriate. What does this mean? If, when the Tathāgata preaches the sūtra in the present, the preface established is called "present," then when Ānanda transmits it, it is also a preface established in the present; why would it not be present? If, in relation to the Tathāgata's present preaching, Ānanda's preface is called "future," then in relation to Ānanda's transmission, the Tathāgata's preface should be called "past." Although the Buddha is in the past, one takes precisely the time of preaching as the present; Ānanda is also like this: although future relative to the Buddha, taking precisely the time of transmission, it is also the present. Both being present, how could one be designated exclusively as future? Indeed, because "future" has a fault and must be abandoned, the "present" that stands in opposition to it cannot be established either. In the fourth pair, "before the sūtra" is without fault, but "after the sūtra" is inappropriate. If it is called "after the sūtra," how can it be called a preface? If it is spoken of as a preface, then it is not after the sūtra. One should know that in relation to the two sūtras, both prefaces are "before the sūtra"; one cannot determine exclusively that one is "after the sūtra." Indeed, because "after the sūtra" is inappropriate and must be abandoned, the meaning of "before the sūtra" that stands in opposition to it cannot be established either. Truly, because those names all have faults, this present commentator exclusively preserves the designations "faith-attesting" and "initiating."