維摩義記 1.18

1.18

次第三門，解釋如是我聞之言。先解如是，於中初先就人以定，後正解釋定之云何。昔來相傳就阿難釋。所言如者，阿難所傳如於佛語，故名為如。為欲簡去相似之如，故復云是。如世人言，此物似彼得稱為如，不妨體非不得言是。今言如者，不同彼如，故須彰是。究尋此言，乃是就佛，非就阿難。云何得知？如龍樹釋言「如是者，信順之辭。其信順者言是事如是，其不信者言是事不如是。」阿難信順佛語，故名佛語以之為如，噵佛所說以之為是。非是阿難自信己語、噵己所說為如為是。故《溫室經》初言阿難曰：「吾從佛聞於如是。」故知名佛所說為如，噵佛所說以之為是。但方言不同，彼《溫室經》順此方語，是故先噵吾從佛聞，後出所聞。如是之法，餘經多順外國人語，先舉如是却云我聞，定之麁爾。解釋云何？言如是者，阿難噵佛所說之法如於前事，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，是常道理，故名為是。乖此之言名為非故，如法之言得稱為是。此約法解。若約人論，阿難噵佛所說之法，如過去佛所說不變，故名為如。如諸佛說是正非邪，故復言是。準《涅槃經》釋如來義亦有此相。言「我聞」者，阿難對彼未來眾生，陳己飡說故曰我聞。聞實是耳，何得言我？諸根之別皆我用具，是故就主說言我聞。法中無人，何處有主而言就主說我聞乎？釋言：法中雖無定主，非無假名綰御眾生，故得就之宣說我聞。故《涅槃》云「譬如四兵令以成軍。雖無定主，亦得稱言我軍勇健、我軍勝彼。此亦如是，故得稱我。」

Next, the third section: properly explaining the words "Thus have I heard." First, explaining "thus": within this, first we settle it with reference to the person, and afterward properly explain how it is settled. Traditionally, it has been explained with reference to Ānanda: as for the word "thus" (ru), what Ānanda transmitted conformed (ru) to the Buddha's words, and was therefore called "thus" (ru). In order to exclude a mere similarity of "likeness" (ru), he also said "is" (shi). Just as worldly people say that this thing resembles that one and may be called "like" (ru), it does not prevent its substance from not being it, so that it cannot be said to be "is" (shi). Now when saying "thus" (ru), it is not the same as that "likeness," so "is" (shi) must be made evident. If one thoroughly investigates these words, they actually refer to the Buddha, not to Ānanda. How is this known? As Nāgārjuna explained: "'Thus' (rushi) is an expression of faithful compliance. One who faithfully complies says 'this matter is thus'; one who does not believe says 'this matter is not thus.'" Ānanda faithfully complied with the Buddha's words, and therefore designated the Buddha's words as "thus" (ru), stating that what the Buddha said was "right" (shi). It is not that Ānanda himself believed his own words, stating that what he himself said was "thus" and "right." Therefore, at the beginning of the Wēnshì Jīng (Sūtra on the Bathhouse), Ānanda said: "I from the Buddha heard regarding this." Thus one knows that designating what the Buddha said as "thus" means stating that what the Buddha said was "right." It is only that regional idioms differ: that Wēnshì Jīng followed the language of this region [China], and therefore first said "I from the Buddha heard," and afterward brought out what was heard—the dharma of "thus." Most other sūtras follow the language of foreign countries, first raising "thus" and then saying "have I heard." Determining it is roughly like this. How is it explained? In saying "thus," Ānanda states that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha conformed (ru) to the prior events, and was therefore called "thus" (ru). When explaining principle, it conforms to principle; when explaining phenomena, it conforms to phenomena; when explaining causes, it conforms to causes; when explaining effects, it conforms to effects. All such words that conform to the Dharma are constant principles, and are therefore called "right" (shi). Because words contrary to this are called wrong, words conforming to the Dharma may be called "right." This is the explanation in terms of the Dharma. If discussed in terms of the person: Ānanda states that the Dharma spoken by the Buddha does not alter from what past Buddhas have spoken, and is therefore called "thus" (ru). As what the Buddhas speak is correct and not heterodox, he also says "right" (shi). Based on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's explanation of the meaning of Tathāgata, there is also this characteristic. In saying "I heard": facing those future sentient beings, Ānanda expresses his own receiving and taking in of the teaching, and therefore says "I heard." Hearing is in fact the ear; how can one say "I"? The distinctions among the sense faculties are all instruments used by the "I"; therefore, with reference to the master, it is said "I heard." Within phenomena there is no person; where is there a master, that one speaks of referring to a master in saying "I heard"? The explanation is: although within phenomena there is no determinate master, there is nonetheless a conventional designation that directs and governs sentient beings, and therefore one may refer to it to proclaim "I heard." Hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "For example, four divisions of troops are deployed to form an army. Although there is no determinate master, one may still say 'our army is valiant; our army conquers that one.' This is also like that; therefore one may say 'I.'"