大般涅槃經義記 1.18

1.18

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."