觀彌勒上生兜率天經贊 1.25

1.25

問：若爾者，何故不稱名字，但稱我耶？答：有三義。一亦不乖俗，西域方言汎皆稱我，宗雖顯真、說不乖俗，理雖顯妙、言不乖麁，欲顯真諦不離俗故。二我者主宰自在之義，阿難多聞聞持，其聞積集，三慧齊修、文義並持，於三藏教總持自在；若稱名字，雖順正理，無於諸法得自在義。由斯稱我，不噵阿難。三我者親義，世間共言我見我聞，此將為親證。若言阿難聞，或非親聞、從他傳受，今顯親聞世尊，可說非是傳聞，破他疑網故，不稱字但言我聞。聞即耳根發識聽受所說，今廢耳別就我總稱，故名我聞。雖依大乘，根識心所境至和合方名為聞，然根五義勝識等，故根名聞。若但聞聲，可唯在耳；既緣名義，便在意中。故《瑜伽》言「聞謂比量。耳名聞者，親聞於聲，與意為門，意方聞故，因聞所成總名為聞。若緣名義稱之為聞，既在於意，故合名聞，癈別耳意總稱我聞。以耳為門熏習在總，因聞所成總名為聞，故名我聞。慶喜于時雖亦見覺知佛所說，然三義但言我聞：欲證深理要先聞故、此界以聲為佛事故、希證菩提要聞重故。由斯經首不說見覺知，唯說我聞，據實于時亦見佛說。諸餘佛土以光明等而為佛事，可言見等。」龍軍等言：佛唯有三法，謂大定智慧久離戲論曾不說法，由佛慈悲本願緣力，眾生識上文義相生。此文義相雖親依自善根力起，而就強緣名為佛說。由耳根力乃自意變，故名我聞。故無性云：聞者識上直非直說聚集顯現以為體性。若爾，云何菩薩能說彼增上生故作是說？譬如天等增上力故，令於夢中得論呪等。故佛亦言「始從成道、終至涅槃，於其中間不說一字。」汝亦不聞親光等言「佛離分別，名無戲論」，豈不說法名無戲論？謂宜聞者善根本願緣力，如來識上文義相生。此文義相是佛利他善根所起，故名我聞。世親說言：謂餘相續識差別故，令餘相續差別識生，彼此互為增上緣。故由此經說「我所說法如手中葉，未所說法如林中葉。」此中二解，隨彼兩文綺互解釋。應知說此如是我聞，意避增減異分過失，謂如是法我從佛聞，非他展轉，顯示聞者有所堪能，諸有所聞皆離增減異分過失。非如愚夫無所堪能，諸有所聞或分別不能離增減異分。結集法時，傳佛教者依如來教初說此言，為令眾生恭敬信受，言如是法我從佛聞，文義決定無所增減。是故聞者應正聞已，如理思惟當勤修學。

Question: If that is so, why is his personal name not stated, but only "I" is stated? Answer: There are three reasons. First, it does not contravene worldly convention: in the vernacular of the Western Regions, people generally refer to themselves as "I"; although the cardinal teaching reveals the real, the speech does not contradict worldly convention; although the principle reveals the sublime, the words do not contradict the coarse; this is because it is intended to show that the ultimate truth is not separate from worldly convention. Second, "I" carries the meaning of sovereign mastery. Ānanda had heard much and retained what he heard; his learning was accumulated; he cultivated the three wisdoms equally and retained both the letter and the meaning; he possessed unhindered mastery over the teachings of the Tripiṭaka. If he had stated his personal name, although that would conform to correct principle, it would not convey the meaning of having attained mastery over all dharmas. For this reason "I" is stated, and "Ānanda" is not spoken. Third, "I" conveys the sense of personal presence. In the world, people commonly say "I saw" and "I heard"; this is taken as personal verification. If it were said "Ānanda heard," it might mean he did not hear it personally, but received it as transmitted from another. Here, to show that he personally heard it from the World-Honoured One, so that it can be said not to be hearsay, and in order to break through the net of doubts of others, his name is not stated and he simply says "I heard." "Hearing" means the ear faculty generating consciousness to listen to and receive what is spoken. Here, setting aside the specific ear, it is designated generally by "I"; hence it is called "I heard." Although according to the Mahāyāna, hearing is so called only when the faculty, consciousness, mental factors, and object come together in harmony, nevertheless, because the faculty is superior to consciousness and the rest in five senses, the faculty is called "hearing." If it were merely hearing sounds, that could reside exclusively in the ear; but since it apprehends names and meanings, it resides in the mind. Therefore the *Yogācāra* says: "Hearing refers to inference." The reason the ear is called "hearing" is that it personally hears the sound and serves as the gateway for the mind; only then does the mind hear. Therefore, that which is accomplished through hearing is collectively called "hearing." If apprehending names and meanings is called "hearing," since it resides in the mind, they are combined and called "hearing"; setting aside the distinct ear and mind, it is collectively called "I heard." With the ear serving as the gateway, the perfuming resides in the whole; that which is accomplished through hearing is collectively called "hearing"; hence it is called "I heard." Although at that time Ānanda also saw, perceived, and knew what the Buddha spoke, for three reasons it only says "I heard": in order to realize the profound principle, one must first hear; in this world system the Buddha's work is performed through sound; and when aspiring to realize bodhi, hearing is prioritized. For this reason, the opening of the sūtra does not speak of seeing, perceiving, or knowing, but only says "I heard." In actuality, at that time he also saw the Buddha speak. In other Buddha-lands where the Buddha's work is performed through radiance and the like, one might say "seen" and so forth. Nāgasena and others said: The Buddha possesses only three dharmas, namely, great concentration, wisdom, and having long been free of conceptual proliferation; he has never spoken the Dharma. Through the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vows, the images of letters and meanings arise upon the consciousness of sentient beings. Although these images of letters and meanings arise directly based on the power of their own wholesome roots, with respect to the predominant condition they are called "the Buddha's teaching." Through the power of the ear faculty they are transformed by one's own mind; hence it is called "I heard." Therefore Asvabhāva says: Direct and indirect speech appearing gathered upon the consciousness of the hearer constitutes the essential nature [of the Dharma]. If so, how can a bodhisattva expound it? It is expounded through the predominant influence of the other, just as through the predominant power of devas and the like, one is made to obtain treatises, dhāraṇīs, and so forth in a dream. Therefore the Buddha also said: "From my initial attainment of the Way up to nirvāṇa, in the interim I have not spoken a single word." Have you also not heard Bandhuprabha and others say: "The Buddha is free from conceptualization, which is called being free of conceptual proliferation"? Does being free of conceptual proliferation mean not speaking the Dharma? It means that through the conditioning power of the fundamental vows and wholesome roots of those fit to hear, the images of letters and meanings arise upon the Tathāgata's consciousness. These images of letters and meanings arise from the Buddha's wholesome roots of benefiting others; hence it is called "I heard." Vasubandhu said: Due to the distinctions in the consciousness of another continuum, distinct consciousnesses are made to arise in another continuum, each acting as a predominant condition for the other. Therefore this sūtra says: "The Dharma I have expounded is like the leaves in my hand; the Dharma I have not expounded is like the leaves in the forest." Between these two explanations, each interprets according to those two texts. It should be understood that speaking this "Thus have I heard" is intended to avoid the faults of addition, omission, or alteration; that is, such Dharma I heard from the Buddha, not indirectly through another, demonstrating that the hearer possesses competence, and all that he heard is free from the faults of addition, omission, or alteration. It is not like foolish common people who lack competence, who either conceptualize all that they hear or are unable to avoid addition, omission, or alteration. When compiling the Dharma, those who transmitted the Buddha's teaching initially spoke these words in accordance with the Tathāgata's instruction, in order to lead sentient beings to revere, believe, and accept it, stating: "Such Dharma I heard from the Buddha; the text and meaning are definitive, without addition or omission." Therefore, hearers, having heard correctly, should contemplate in accordance with principle and diligently cultivate and study.