大般涅槃經義記 1.20

1.20

第四定其文之前却，先敘異說，次辯得失，後顯正義。異說云何？昔來相傳，言證信中句別有五：一如是、二我聞、三一時、四住處、五同聞，後來釋者更加一佛，通餘說六，異說如此。言得失者，如是我聞判為證信，此言當理，是其得也。一時佛等定判經後，此言乖理，是其失也。是義云何？先以事徵，後以文證。言事徵者，一時佛等若是經後，經前無佛，誰之說經？無時無處，說何所託？經前無眾，說何所被？賴藉此等起發所說，何得一向判為經後？人復救言：「事雖經前，後引來證成可信，故判經後。」若爾，何獨五句、六句？正說已前但可有事，所有言說皆後引來，如此經中流血已前，當時但可有事而已，是中言說悉是阿難後時引來；然下文中六種相等雖後引來，得判經前，一時佛等，何為不爾？以斯推驗，一時佛等定判經後實非道理。事驗如此，今以文證，如彼《地論》解佛在於第二七日他化天說，言時、處等校量顯勝，此法勝故在於初時及勝處說。佛將說經，先託時、處，表彰法勝，然後起說，明知時、處，經前起發。又《法華論》釋《法華經》義亦同爾，彼言「何故在王舍城祇闍崛山？此法勝故。」寄處表法，然後起說，明非經後，得失如是。次顯正義，「如是我聞」一向證信，「一時佛」下義有兩兼，取其當時起發之義判為發起，阿難引來證成可信判為證信，義既兩兼，不可偏取。

Fourth, determining the order of the text: first, the differing theories are recounted; next, their strengths and flaws are analyzed; finally, the correct meaning is revealed. What are the differing theories? In the past it was traditionally transmitted that within the verification of faith there are five distinct clauses: first, 'Thus'; second, 'have I heard'; third, 'at one time'; fourth, the dwelling place; fifth, the co-hearers. Later commentators added 'the Buddha', making six together with the rest. Such are the differing theories. As for their strengths and flaws: determining 'Thus have I heard' as verification of faith accords with principle; this is its strength. Definitely determining 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest as coming after the sūtra conflicts with principle; this is its flaw. What is the meaning of this? First, it is examined through facts; next, it is verified through text. As for examining it through facts: if 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest were after the sūtra, then before the sūtra there would be no Buddha, and who would preach the sūtra? Without time and without place, upon what would the preaching rely? Before the sūtra there would be no assembly, and who would receive the preaching? One depends upon these to initiate what is preached; how could one unreservedly determine them to be after the sūtra? Someone might counter to save [the theory]: 'Although the facts were before the sūtra, they are cited afterward to verify and establish credibility, and are therefore determined to be after the sūtra.' If so, why only five or six clauses? Before the main discourse there could only have been the facts, and all the spoken words were cited afterward. Just as in this sūtra before the shedding of blood, at that time there could only have been the facts, and the words therein were all cited afterward by Ānanda; yet in the text below, although the six marks and the like were cited afterward, they can be determined to be before the sūtra—why should 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest not be likewise? Deductively testing by this, to definitely determine 'at one time, the Buddha' and the rest as being after the sūtra is truly unreasonable. Such is the empirical test. Now to verify it through texts: as that Dilun explains the Buddha preaching in the Heaven of Mastery Over Transformations on the second seventh day, stating that the time, place, and so forth are appraised to display supremacy; because this Dharma is supreme, it is preached at the initial time and in a supreme place. When the Buddha is about to preach a sūtra, he first relies on time and place to manifest the supremacy of the Dharma and then begins to preach; this clearly shows that time and place initiate before the sūtra. Furthermore, the Fahua lun's explanation of the Lotus Sūtra's meaning is also the same: it says, 'Why is it in the city of Rājagṛha, on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain? Because this Dharma is supreme.' It expresses the Dharma by relying on the place and then begins to preach, clearly showing that it is not after the sūtra. Such are the strengths and flaws. Next, the correct meaning is revealed: 'Thus have I heard' is unreservedly verification of faith. From 'at one time, the Buddha' downward, the meaning encompasses both: taking its meaning of initiating at that time, it is determined as initiation; when Ānanda cites it to verify and establish credibility, it is determined as verification of faith. Since the meaning encompasses both, one cannot take only one side.