大般涅槃經義記 1.22

1.22

次釋其文，先解如是，於中初先就人以定，然後解釋。定之云何？昔來多就阿難以釋，阿難所傳如佛所說，故名為如。簡去相似，故復云是。究尋此言，就佛以釋，非就阿難。何以得知？如《大智論》言「如是者，信順之詞，其信者言是事如是、不信者言是事不如是。」阿難彰已信順佛語，名佛所說，以為如是。又，《溫室經》初云「阿難曰：『吾從佛聞如是。』」故知阿難名佛所說，以為如是。但方言不同，彼《溫室經》順此方語，故說從佛聞於如是；餘經多順外國人語，先舉如是，後彰我聞。定之麁爾，釋之云何？言如是者，解有兩義：一約法解，阿難道彼如來所說如於諸法，故名為如，說理如理、說事如事、說因如因、說果如果，如是一切如法之言是當道理，故曰如是，良以乖法名為非故，如法之言得稱為是；二約人解，阿難道今釋迦所說如於過去一切佛說，故名為如，如諸佛說是當道理，故曰如是，良以乖佛所說為非，如諸佛說得名為是。言我聞者，阿難對彼未來眾生道己飡說，故曰我聞。聞實是耳，云何稱我？諸根之別皆我用具，就主以名，故曰我聞。法中無人，云何就主宣說我聞？釋言：法中雖無定主，非無假名，綰御眾生，故得稱我。譬如四兵合以為軍，雖無定主，亦得稱言我軍勇健、我軍勝彼，此亦同爾。

Next, explaining its text: first, 'Thus' is explained, wherein it is first determined in relation to the person, and then explained. How is it determined? In the past it was mostly explained in relation to Ānanda: what Ānanda transmitted was as the Buddha had preached, hence it is called 'like' (ru); differentiating it from mere resemblance, it is further called 'this' (shi). Investigating this statement thoroughly, it is explained in relation to the Buddha, not in relation to Ānanda. How is this known? As the Dazhidulun says: ''Thus' (rushi) is an expression of faithful compliance; one who believes says, 'This matter is thus'; one who does not believe says, 'This matter is not thus.'' Ānanda manifests his own faithful compliance with the Buddha's words, declaring what the Buddha preached to be thus. Furthermore, the beginning of the Wenshi jing says: 'Ānanda said, 'I heard thus from the Buddha.'' Therefore, we know that Ānanda declared what the Buddha preached to be thus. It is only that the regional languages differ: that Wenshi jing conforms to the speech of this region, hence it says 'heard thus from the Buddha'; other sūtras mostly conform to the speech of foreign countries, first mentioning 'Thus' and afterward manifesting 'have I heard'. Such is a rough determination of it. How is it explained? As for the word 'Thus' (rushi), the explanation has two meanings: first, explaining in terms of dharmas: Ānanda says that what the Tathāgata preached is in accordance with (ru) all dharmas, hence it is called ru; preaching principle accords with principle, preaching phenomena accords with phenomena, preaching cause accords with cause, preaching fruit accords with fruit; all such statements in accordance with the Dharma accord with principle, hence called rushi ('thus'); indeed, because conflict with the Dharma is called wrong, statements in accordance with the Dharma can be called right (shi). Second, explaining in terms of persons: Ānanda says that what Śākyamuni now preaches is in accordance with (ru) the preaching of all past buddhas, hence called ru; being in accordance with the preaching of all buddhas accords with principle, hence called rushi; indeed, because conflict with what the Buddha preached is wrong, being in accordance with the preaching of all buddhas can be called right. As for the words 'have I heard' (wo wen): Ānanda, addressing future living beings, says that he received the preaching, hence called 'have I heard'. Hearing is actually done by the ear; why is it called 'I'? The various faculties are all instruments used by the self; it is named in terms of the master, hence called 'have I heard'. Within dharmas there is no person; why declare 'have I heard' in terms of a master? The explanation says: although there is no fixed master within dharmas, there is no lack of a provisional name governing living beings, hence it can be called 'I'. For example, when the four divisions of an army unite to form an army, although there is no fixed master, one can still say, 'Our army is brave and robust,' or 'Our army surpasses them.' This is also the same.